Karnataka High Court
Sri Sharnappa Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRL.RP.NO.3060/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHARNAPPA
S/O SANNA YAMUNAPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O YELE KUDIGI VILLAGE
TQ: SINDHANUR
DIST: RAICHUR
2. M. D. SABEERULLA HAQ
S/O M.D.FADURALLA HAQ
AGE: 43 YEARS
OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER
CRP YAPALDINNI VILLAGE
DIST: RAICHUR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ISWARAJ S.CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(LOKAYUKTA RAICHUR POLICE
CIRCUIT BENCH GULBARGA
REPRESENTED BY SPL.P.P.
FOR LOKAYUKTA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.P.P.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN CRL.MISC.NO: 168/2013 & 169/2013 U/S 344
OF CR.P.C. (OUT OF SPL CASE NO.5/2010) PENDING BEFORE
PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent Lokayukta.
2. This revision petition is filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the initiation of proceedings against the petitioners herein in Criminal Misc.No.168/2013 and 169/2013 under Sections 344 of Cr.P.C.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent police have registered the case against the accused wherein the petitioner No.1 is the complainant and petitioner No.2 is a shadow witness and petitioner No.1 has given the complaint before the respondent police 3 stating that the accused demanded an amount of Rs.300/- for correcting the name of college in the cheque and hence, the complaint was lodged and he gave an amount of Rs.300/- to Lokayukta police and panch witnesses were secured and entrustment panchnama was drawn and trap was conducted. But during the course of investigation P.W.1 and 2 have turned hostile and both of them were subjected to cross-examination and hence, the trial Court while acquitting the accused in paragraph-14 made an observation that P.W.1 and 2 have visited the office of Lokayukta and particularly the petitioner No.1 admitted the complaint at Ex.P.1 and after reading, he admits the contents are true. But before the Court, he denies the same on oath and he admits his presence in the photographs. P.W.2 also supports the prosecution regarding going to the Lokayukta office and drawing of demonstration and seizure panchanama and admits his presence in the photos but he says that he did not accompany the P.W. 1 and hence the trial Court held that both of them have given false evidence only to help the 4 accused to get acquittal, therefore invoked section 344 of Cr.P.C., to initiate the proceedings against the petitioners herein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order passed under Section 344 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioners is contrary to law. There is no such evidence on record to hold that petitioners have suppressed the truth and intentionally they have given the false evidence. Merely because witnesses have not supported fully, it cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings against the petitioners herein. Hence, the very initiation of proceedings against the petitioners herein is bad in law.
5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Lokayukta would submit that though these petitioners have admitted that they have visited the Lokayukta office and participated in entrustment panchanama and trap mahazar, they have intentionally and willfully given false evidence in order to help the 5 accused to get acquittal and the trial Court has taken note of the same and observed in paragraph-14 with regard to evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and rightly came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 344 of Cr.P.C.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Lokayukta and the trial Court also while acquitting the accused person taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 to 6 particularly P.Ws.1 and 2 i.e., complainant and shadow witness both of them have turned hostile but petitioner No.1 admits the contents of the complaint Ex.P.1 wherein an allegation is made against the accused for demanding bribe money and also admitted his presence in the photo but intentionally helped the accused and hence, it is clear that Section 344 of Cr.P.C., is very clear that if any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or willfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be 6 used in such proceeding, and the Court if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily, the Court can initiate proceedings. But in the case on hand, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 has been discussed in paragraph-14 and the trial Court had taken note of their evidence is nothing but a false evidence but only to help the accused to get acquittal and when such being the opinion is formed by the trial Court Judge to invoke Section 344 of Cr.P.C., I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court Judge in initiating the proceedings having recourse to provisions of Section 344 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioners herein. Since, the P.W.1 has given complaint of alleging demand and the shadow witness also accompanied the complainant and both of them knowingly and intentionally given false evidence to help the accused. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition as the trial judge has not committed any error in invoking Section 344 of Cr.P.C., the legality and correctness is in consonance of Section 344 of Cr.P.C., hence, there is no merit in the petition.
7
7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR