Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs T. M. Shahid on 28 October, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43365
CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1003 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SULLIA, P.S., DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
AND:
T. M. SHAHID,
SON OF T.A. BABA,
AGED 44 YEARS,
Digitally EX-MEMBER OF CENTRAL COIR BOARD,
signed by
MALATESH R/AT THEKKIL POST, ARANTHODU POST,
KC SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22.12.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K.,
MANGALORE, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. PASSED IN
CRL.R.P.NO.5047/2015 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43365
CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2016
C.C.NO.75/2015 DATED 9.2.2015 PASSED BY THE JMFC,
SULLIA, D.K.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri Abdul Ansar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The State is in revision challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge in Crl.R.P.No.5047/2015, whereby the order taking cognizance dated 09.02.2015 in C.C.No.75/2015 was set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1 PSI, Sullia police station, submitted a charge sheet against the respondent herein for commission of the -3- NC: 2024:KHC:43365 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2016 offence punishable under Section 505 of the IPC based on the complaint lodged by Sri Irshad Goonadka. The complaint averments would reveal that the complainant was a resident of Goonadka, Sampaja village, Sullia taluk, Dakshina Kannada District and was a student in the school of social work at Roshani Nilaya college and was also a social activist.
4. He claims himself as a social activist obtaining information under the Right to Information Act actively and he obtained certain information from the government organization in respect of one T.M.Shahid who was indulged in misappropriation of the government grants.
Being enraged with the obtained such information, on 02.08.2014, said T.M.Shahid made incorrect and illegal allegations against him, resulting in the creation of unrest in the society.
5. Jurisdictional police, after registering the criminal case as aforesaid, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet without obtaining the necessary -4- NC: 2024:KHC:43365 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2016 sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. from the State government. The learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons.
6. Order taking cognizance and issuance of summons was challenged by the accused before the District Court in Crl.R.P.No.5047/2015.
7. Learned District Judge in the First Appellate Court after notifying the State, heard the parties in detail and noted that in respect of an offence under Section 505 of the IPC, previous sanction from the State government is necessary for filing the charge sheet. Taking cognizance of the offence in the absence of such sanction is illegal and set aside the order taking cognizance.
8. The said order is called in question by the State in this revision petition.
9. Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that the approach of the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:43365 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2016 revisional court in setting aside the order of taking cognizance is incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Per contra, Sri Abdul Ansar, learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned order.
11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has taken note of Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. and in fact culled out Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. in the impugned order.
12. On perusal of the said provision of law, it is crystal clear that before filing the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 505 of the IPC, it is incumbent on the part of the investigation officer to obtain necessary sanction as contemplated under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. from the State government. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:43365 CRL.RP No. 1003 of 2016
13. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity whatsoever in the order of the learned Judge in the revisional court, impugned in this revision.
14. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER i. Grounds urged in the revision petition are merit less. Accordingly admission declined. ii. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed.
iii. However, it is always open for the investigation agency to obtain necessary sanction from the State government and proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HDK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82 CT: BHK