Sri Ashpak Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ashpak Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2019

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                              1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2019

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

                   Crl.P. No. 7909/2015

BETWEEN :
--------------

Sri. Ashpak Ahmed
S/o. Jalil Khan
Aged about 24 years
R/o. Chikkajamburu Village
Tq. Shikaripura
Dist. Shivamogga - 577 427.              ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. D.C. Parameshwaraiah, Adv., for
Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, Adv.)

AND :
-------

1.     The State of Karnataka
       By Shikaripura Police Station
       Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
       Advocate General's Office
       High Court Building
       Bengaluru - 560 001.

2.     Sri. Giridhar
       S/o. Thimmaiah
                               2




     Aged about 34 years
     R/o. Ajjampura Village
     Tarikere Taluk
     Chikkamagaluru Dist. 577 228.      ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP, for R-1
R-2 is sd. and unrepresented)

                             ---

      This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a
prayer to quash the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the
Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Shikaripura in
C.C. No. 833/2013 and etc.

     This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the
Court passed the following;

                         ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is served and unrepresented.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Shikaripura in C.C. No. 833/2013 whereby the application filed by the APP under Section 3 216 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed by the trial Court and the plea/accusation recorded by the trial Court is directed to be altered by changing the registration No. of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Bike as KA15/R/6759 in place of KA15/L/6759.

3. A reading of the impugned order reveals that the said order was necessitated because of the wrong mention of the registration number of the vehicle. In the complaint, the bike involved in the accident was described as bearing No. KA15/L/6759. However, the evidence was let in before the Court by the witnesses with reference to the bike bearing registration No. KA15/R/6759. Even though in the motor vehicle report registration number of the seized vehicle was mentioned as KA15/L/6759, yet, in his evidence P.W.10 clearly deposed that the actual registration number of the said bike is KA15/R/6759 and there is no Bajaj Pulsar Motor Bike registered in RTO as KA15/L/6759.

4. The above material discloses that there is no ambiguity whatsoever with regard to the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is solely on account of mis-description of the vehicle in various documents the application appears to have been filed by the learned APP to amend the plea/accusation recorded by the trial Court. Since in the course of trial it is ascertained that the involved vehicle bore the registration KA15/R/6759, learned Magistrate was justified in allowing the said application and directing necessary amendment to describe the vehicle with its correct registration number in conformity with the documents produced before the Court. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality whatsoever in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. However, in view of the alteration of the charge, the trial Court is required to give an opportunity to the accused to lead further evidence to meet the altered 5 charge if desired by the accused. With this observation, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

LRS.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court