Karnataka High Court
Shri. Tippesh Sanna Halappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 450 (KAR.), 2011 (2) AIR KAR R 497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA -. CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD : OATED THIS THE 197% DAY OF AUGUST ao10~ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRE. JUSTIC E ARAL! K AGARAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8005 OF 2010 BETWEEN Shri. Tippesh Sarina Halappa Age:45 years, Occ: Bervice, R/o HESCOM: Section Gffice, Pant Balekundri © BO Tal & Dist-. Belgaum. ne . ...Petitioner. (By Sri. Vv. K. Naik, Advoe: ate. j AND: o The St: ate of Kar nataka, R/by HESCOM Vigilance PLS. Beigaum. : a 7 . Respondent. (By 'sri Vv. M. Ba nakar, HCGP) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed - "under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. seeking _ to _ set aside the proceedings under ri.Misc.No.356/2010 {in special -- cas® : No. 30/2008) dated 20.03.2010 at Annexure-A pending before the file of ] Additional Sessions ~. and Special Judge, Belgaum. oe +4 This Criminal Revision Petition coming on" for further arguments this day, the Court, made the following: ere Oe ORDER
The petitioner herein. has. : sought : for quashing of the entire proceedings in Criminal Misc. No.356/ 2010 pending on the file of learned | Additional Sessions Sudege, Belgaum { herein after referred to as Sessions Judge).
QB. 8 Stated in brief the facts leading to the present petition are as under.
. _ a) The petitioner herein was examined "RS PW in Special Case No.30/2008 on : the file of the learned Sessions Judge. In his evidence, this petitioner was supposed to identify M.O.Nos.} to 5 and 8 that were _ 'narked 'in the said case, as belonging to "the 'somplainant HESCOM. Belgaum. In his examination-in-chief, he did not . 'identify the said articles as belonging to 't. Therefore, he came to be treated as a ai ~ High Court Government Pleader and perused the hostile witness. He did not support the prosecution in his cross-examination also.
b}) The learned Sessions Judge, by. his Judgment and Order dated 12. OL.29 10 passed in the said case, while acqintting | the accused Nos. 1 to S-and 5 to-7° therein, of the offences. punishable under Sections 135-A and... 1364 yj of "ridian Electricity Act 2003,. di: rooted initiation of separate -- miscellaneous - "proceedings against PWe3 'Tippesh, (petitioner herein) under Section S44 of cr. PoC.
c) Accordingly Cel: Mise. No.356/2010 came to. be registered on the file of the lear ned: uo Sessions Judge. The petitioner has | sought. for quashing of the entire proces dings in the said Cri. Misc. case.
3. Heard the arguments of Srivuths. VE Nayak and G.V.Huller, the learned counsel "foi the petitioner and Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned judgment and order passed in the said Special ee Case and the order dated 20.03.2010 passed it. a Criminal Mise. No. 356/2010,
4. Learned advocates for che petitioner, © strongly contend that before "invoking the provision of Section 3244 of. Cr. Plc. the. learned Sessions Judge ought fo have expressed his opinion in his: judgment in thes said Special Case that the petitioner, a8 PW, : gave false evidence en :
'o+ knowingly 'or wwillfallyy and farther, he ought to have satisfied himself that it is mecessary and expedient ih the. interest of justice that this 7 petitioner should tse tried summarily for giving false evidence 'and then he should have taken cognizance of the said offence and issued notice Ste the. petitioner calling upon him and show-
CAUSE: petec as to why he should not be punished for the offence under Section 344 of
--
ral Cr.P.Cc. and therefore the entire proceedings in the said case deserve to be quahed. _
5. Sri. V.M.Banakar tearned HCGP,. fairly concedes that unfortunately the learned Sessions Judge has not inade "any observations in his judgment in the said Special Case that this petitioner, who was examined as P.W.3, gave false evidence knowingly or willfully and that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of the justice to proceed against him under Section 344 Cr. PC.
_-- Section 34411) Cr.P.c. reads as under.
i Et, at time of delivery of anv . judgment or final order disposing of any judicial preceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or willfully given false evidence or had Pe en fabricated false evidence with the -- intention that such evidence 'should, be used in such proceeding, it or he. may, if satisfied that if is necessary and expedient in "the - interest" of justice that the witness should be tried summé aril for. o giving or fabri icating, as the case "may be, false evi ider ce, | take. cogrtizance of the. offence and may,. after giving the offe nder a Pease; rable 'opportunity of "showing « cause, Ww hy he should not be "punis shed for such offence, try such offender. 'summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term 'which may extend to three months, or to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
. A plain reading of the above provisions of Sub Section (1) of 344 of Cr.P.C. it is clear that the 'learned Sessions Judge, in his Judgment, _ bassed in em case, should express his opinion . :
that the witness gave false evidence knowingly oo os i or willfully and further, he should be satisfied. ~~
- + a -
that "it is mecessary and expedient in the interest of the justice' that such wifiess should be tried summarily under Sections 344 of. Cr.P.C. and thereafter he has to take cognizance of the said offence and. then issue motice to the witnesses requiring him to show-cause as to why he should not be punished for an offence under Section 344 of Or P.C. ~
6. on. careful reading of the judgment passed by 'the learned. Sessions Judge in the said Special. Case; if-could be seen that he has observed "at para No.18 therein that this petitioner, who was examined as P.W.3, being
- the Section Officer of Balekundri office of the
- complainant HESCOM, did not identify, in his
-examlination-in- chief, M.Os. 1 to 3 and & as the very same articles belonging to the complainant-
oe ee HESCOM, which were said to have been stolen : a by the accused in the said case. The. le arned Session Judge has further observed. at the same paragraph that even in his. cross © -xamination made by the learned public pF osecutor with: the permission of the const this petitioner did rot identify the said artic ie 7 as "belonging to the complainant HES SCOM. 'It appears 'that for this reason opty. the. earned "gessions Judge proceeded | to initiate "the proceedings under Section 3 Ae Ce P. C. against the petitioner.
- 7. ~ simpy Besause the petitioner came to be treated, as: hostile witness on the ground that he did pot Aiport the prosecution Case, as said te have. been stated by him in his statement "recorded by the LO. during investigation, it , could not be inferred that he gave false evidence either knowingly or willingly. In the absence of
--_----
an observation by the learned Sessions Judge that this petitioner gave false evidence knowing it to be false or willingly with any definite a purpose to help the accused, it could not be said that the petitioner committed the offence under .
Section 344 of Cr.P.C.
8. Further, at 'is the. _ mandatory requirement of Section 344 of Cr. P. C. that before proceeding: against any 'petaoi thereunder, the Sessions Judge Wiaet bes satisfied that it is necessary and "expedient i in the interest of justice to. proceed against such person under Section 7 344 of Cr. P. C. and thereafter, the
- Sessions, Judge he has to take cognizance of the seid offence and then issue notice requiring him
- to show-cause as to why he should not be ~ punished for the said offence. This mandate of | Section 344 of Cr.P.C. is not complied with by
--s ee Ped 10 the learned Sessions Judge in the instant case. 7 . Therefore | am of the considered o pinion 'that the present petition deserves to be allowed: --
9. For the reasons aforesaid the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire "proceedings in Criminal Misc.No.356/2010. pending on the file of the | Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, are hereby quashed. The bail bona, if anv, executed in the said case by the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE _ Mck/ Pv