Karnataka High Court
Yamanamma W/O Late Hanamapa Bhavital ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2013
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED: THIS THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3618 OF 2013
Between :
1. Yamanamma w/o late Hanamappa
Bhavital, Age: 60 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kalmangi, Tq: Sindhanur.
2. Renukamma d/o late Hanamappa
Bhavital, & W/o Virupanna Nayak,
Age: 38 years,
R/o Ragalaparvi village, Tq: Sindhanur.
3. Venkatesh s/o late Timmappa
Bhavital, Age: 35 years,
R/o Kalmangi, Tq: Sindhanur.
4. Hanumappa s/o late Timmappa
Bhavital, Age: 52 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kalmangi, Tq: Sindhanur.
5. Pampamma w/o late Thimmappa
Bhavital, Age: 55 years,
R/o Kalmangi, Tq: Sindhanur.
6. Ramanna s/o late Krishtappa
Bhavital, Age: 35 years,
R/o Kalmangi, Tq: Sindhanur.
2
7. Thimmanna s/o late Krishtappa
Bhavital, Age: 33 years,
R/o Kalmangi, Tq: Sindhanur. .. Appellants
( By Sri Ishwar Raj S. Chowdapur, Advocate )
And :
The State of Karnataka
Through Turvihal Police Station,
Rep.by Addl.State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka
Bench Gulbarga. .. Respondent
( By Sri Sanjay A. Patil, Addl.SPP)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 86 of
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order passed by the I
Addl.Sessions Judge at Raihcur passed in Sessions Case
No.19/2009 order dated 24.9.2013 by allowing this appeal.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Admission this
day, the Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned I Addl.Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Sessions Case No.19/2009, dated 24th September 2013, dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 84 of Cr.P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. 3
2. The Turvihal police have registered a case in Crime No.101/2004 against four persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 506 r/w. section 34 of IPC. The police after investigation, filed the charge sheet. The case was committed to the Sessions Court i.e., in S.C.No.40/2006. During the course of trial, accused No.1 died. The trial against other two accused was concluded and they were acquitted of the offences. A split up charge sheet came to be filed against accused No.2-Basawaraj s/o Mudukappa. He remained absconding before the Court in spite of issuance of non-bailable warrant on many occasions. Ultimately, the order of proclamation was issued and the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, was directed to attach the land of accused No.2 on 16.8.2010 pursuant to which, the property belonging to accused No.2 came to be attached and now the said property is kept for sale through public auction.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are the relatives of accused No.2 - Basavaraj and they are challenging the order of issuance of 4 proclamation and attachment of property on the ground that it is a joint family property. It is also submitted that the police department itself had published the missing complaint to know the whereabouts of accused No.2-Basavaraj way back in the year 2007 in connection with Crime No.101/2004 of Turvihal Police Station. He further submitted that appellants are also not aware of the whereabouts of accused No.2 and apart from that, in a surety proceedings initiated, already fine amount has been recovered. Therefore continuation of proceeding against accused No.2 who is not available, his whereabouts being not known and since already missing complaint is published by the police, issuance of proclamation and attaching the property, which is a joint family property, causes great hardship to the appellants and accordingly, sought for setting aside the impugned order.
4. The learned Addl.SPP submitted that as per Section 82 of Cr.P.C. if any proclamation order is passed, within six months the aggrieved person shall have to file a suit challenging the proclamation. That has not been done in the 5 present case. Apparently, this appeal is filed belatedly and as such, the same is not maintainable. In reply, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per Section 86 of Cr.P.C., appeal is maintainable though there is some delay.
In view of the submission made above, since already surety proceedings are initiated and fine amount has been recovered pursuant to the bail bond executed by the surety, the present proceedings becomes redundant as according to the appellants, the whereabouts of accused No.2 are not known to them also despite the police publishing notification with regard to missing of accused No.2.
In that view of the matter, for the present, the order of proclamation and subjecting the property for public auction, is dispensed with. However, in the event accused No.2 is secured, he would be tried, apart from proceeding against him for his non-appearance/violation of bail bond conditions. Ordered accordingly.
6Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bk/