Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Lambadi Chandranaik on 27 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ2732, ILR1996KAR1600, 1996(2)KARLJ157
Author: C.N. Aswathanarayana Rao
Bench: C.N. Aswathanarayana Rao
ORDER
1. Since this matter can be finally disposed of at this stage itself it is taken up for final disposal. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner.
2. The State has preferred this Revision Petition against the order dated 5-7-95 in CC No. 4115/91 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Munsiff and JMFC Bellary, closing the prosecution case and dropping the proceedings because the accused in the case could not be served either with summons or non-bailable warrants issued against them.
3. The Cowl Bazaar Police in Bellary filed a charge sheet in CC No. 4115/91 against the accused Lambadi Chandra Naik and Lambadi Dharma Naik. They showed Lambadi Dharma Naik as absconding in the charge-sheet. Attempts were made by the prosecution to serve the summons and non-bailable warrants issued by the Court against both the accused between 18-11-1992 and 4-7-1995, over a period of 3 years, but they did not succeed. A proclamation appears to have been issued but was of no avail. So on 5-7-95 when the matter came up before the learned Magistrate, relying upon the decision of this Court , the learned Magistrate directed the closure of the proceedings by way of dropping the proceedings and passed an order accordingly. There is no provision of law cited in the impugned order under which the said order has been passed.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner contended that the decision is not applicable to this case because in the said decision the provision under Chapter-4 in the Karnataka Criminal rules and Practice, 1968 has not been brought to the notice of the High Court. He submitted that when the accused has absconded in a warrant case, the correct procedure is to follow the provisions under Chapter-4 of the Rules and practice referred to above and after obtaining the permission of the Sessions Judge the case has to be entered in the register of long pending cases.
5. On a perusal of the decision , I find as rightly pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the procedure prescribed under the Rules of Practice has not been brought to the notice of the High Court in that case and therefore the Court held that if the accused is not traceable the correct procedure is to close the matter. In that case the offence alleged was under S. 379 IPC which was a warrant case.
6. In the case on hand, the offences alleged against the accused are under Ss. 354, 324 and 506 read with S. 34, IPC. The procedure governing the trial of the offences under Ss. 354 and 324, IPC is that of a warrant case. Therefore the provisions under Chapter-4 of the Criminal rules of Practice apply. In my view the decision in has been rendered only because the provisions under Chapter 4 of the Karnataka Rules of Practice, have not been brought to the notice of the Court. When there is specific procedure prescribed in the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice for such cases they cannot be ignored. I therefore find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
7. For the reasons aforesaid the petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to follow the procedure under Chapter 4 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 and dispose it of in accordance with law.
8. Petition allowed.