Karnataka High Court
Shri. Raigouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10819/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Shri. Raigouda
Son of Basagouda Dhavaleshwar
Age: 40 years, Occupation: Business
Resident of Sujalam Building
Opposite: English School
Taluk: Athani, District: Belgaum
2. Shri. Sanjeev
Son of Rajgouda Dhavaleshwar
Age: 36 years, Occupation: Business
Resident of Sujalam Building
Opposite: English School
Taluk: Athani, District: Belgaum
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Santosh S. Hattikatagi, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Circuit Bench, Dharwad.
2
2. The Drugs Inspector
Belgaum Circle, Belgaum
Office of the Assistant Drug Controller
No.291, Bhikku Satya Bhama Building
Dr. S. P. M. Road, Near Prakash Talkies
Belgaum
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. V. M. Banakar, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the impugned
order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-I,
Chikodi, in Sessions Case No.368/2012 as Criminal Case
No.112/2012 and entire proceedings against the petitioners for
the offences punishable under Sections 18(A) (VI) read with
Rule 65(2), 65(3) and 65(11-A) punishable under Section 27(D)
of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and 18A punishable under
Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and 18B
punishable under Section 28A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 against the accused No.2 and 3.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
2. The petitioners are accused of offences punishable under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940(hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', for brevity), apart from 3 the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity).
3. It transpires that, a complaint was lodged before the Magistrate in terms of Section 32 of the Act. The jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is now vested with the Court of Sessions and the complaint having been lodged before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had taken cognizance and thereafter, that the matter stands committed to the Sessions Court. It is this procedure that is sought to be questioned as one of the grounds.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that, the Sessions Court, on such committal, had framed the charges, whereas, only the complainant was examined and though witnesses were cited in the complaint, no witnesses were examined. Hence, the learned Counsel would submit that, merely on the basis of the evidence of the complainant, charges having been framed, would be highly irregular and is not in accordance with law.
4
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would bring to the attention of this Court, Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity), which enumerates irregular proceedings which would not vitiate proceedings. One of which is, when a Court, which is not competent to take cognizance, has taken cognizance. In the present case on hand, the first ground urged, that the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance and therefore, the proceeding stands vitiated, is saved by Section 460 of the Cr.P.C.
Secondly, it is contended that, insofar as framing of charges are concerned, under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C, relates to a complaint otherwise than on a police report. Since the present case is a complaint otherwise than on a police report, the Section does not require that, all the witnesses ought to be examined. It is such evidence that may be produced, which is relevant for the Court to frame charges. The complainant having chosen to tender his evidence alone and not having chosen to produce other witnesses, by itself would not vitiate the proceedings nor can it be contended that, no case is made 5 out against the petitioners. The Court in its discretion having thought it fit to proceed further to frame charges by examining only the complainant and not having examined other witnesses, does not vitiate the proceedings and submits that, there is no substance in the petition and the same may be dismissed.
6. From the above contentions, it is evident that the irregular proceedings, which are apparent, did not vitiate the proceedings. The fact that the Magistrate, who was not competent to take cognizance, had taken cognizance and thereafter had committed the case to the Court of Sessions, does not result in the proceeding being vitiated in view of the language of Section 460 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, insofar as charges having been framed merely on the evidence of the complainant, also would not vitiate the proceedings. From the reading of the Sections 244, 245 and 246 of Cr.P.C., it is evident that, it is the discretion of the Court, either to discharge or to frame charges on the basis of the evidence, that is produced. This exercise would not be for this Court to re-examine and address the quantum of evidence and the fact whether the Court was in a position to frame charges on that basis.
6
Therefore, the petition lacks merit and is rejected. I.A.1/2013 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/-