Mujahid Pasha @ Mujakir vs State By Bellavi on 20 January, 2014

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mujahid Pasha @ Mujakir vs State By Bellavi on 20 January, 2014

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

            Criminal Petition No. 328 of 2014

Between:

Mujahid Pasha @ Mujakir,
S/o B.S. Anwar Basha,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No. 11, 8th Cross,
2nd Main Road, 1st Block,
Someshwaranagar,
Bangalore 560 011.                      ... Petitioner

(By Sri Tahir, Adv. )

A n d:

1.   State by Bellavi Police Station,
     Tumkur District,
     Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
     High Court Complex Building,
     Bangalore 560 001.

2.   Sri Pandit Shrinivas,
     S/o Subba Rao,
     Aged about 65 years,
     R/at Janatha Colony, Bellavai,
     Tumkur Tq & Dist. 572 107.

                                        ... Respondents
                              2


(Sri B.J. Eshwaappa, G.P)

      This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.
P.C. praying to quash the proceedings of C.C. No.
41/2007 in Cr. No. 28/2005 of Bellavi Police Station for
the alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, l148, 448,
307 r/w Section 149 of IPC pending before the I Addl. C.J
(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Tumkur.

     This Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court made the following:

                        ORDER

Petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.28/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. Since the petitioner was absconding split charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 in S.C. No.26/2007. On contest the Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 14.12.2010 acquitted accused No.1. On tracing accused Nos. 2 to 5 the respondent police filed split charge sheet against them. Now, petitioner, accused No.4 is before this Court seeking the benefit of acquittal.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the petitioner is in custody. He contends that the prosecution is relying on the same set of evidence which they have relied on in S.C. No.26/2007. It is not shown to me as to what is the difference in the evidence against the petitioner. In the absence of any such difference in the evidence the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of acquittal of accused No.1. In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Rajak vs State of W.B. (2007) 15 SCC 305 held as under:

"A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co- accused on similar accusations can be extended."

For the reasons state above, the following:

ORDER 4

i) Petition is hereby allowed;

ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.41/2007 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Tumkur in so far as the petitioner-accused No.4 is concerned, are hereby quashed.

iii) Petitioner is to be released forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vb/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court