Karnataka High Court
Sri B M Nagabhushan vs State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2012
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.674/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri B.M. Nagabhushan,
S/o. late B.R. Mahadeviah,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.429,
2nd Cross, Buvaneshware nagar,
Banashankari 3rd Stage, 5th Block,
Bangalore - 560 085. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri S. Balan for
M/s. S. Balan & Associates, Advs.)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Lokayuktha police. ... RESPONDENT
(By Smt. T.M. Gayathri, Adv.)
This Crl.R.P. is filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the order dated 05.04.2012 passed by
the XXIII Addl. City Civil and Spl. Judge, Bangalore City in
Spl.C.C.No.306/2010, framing of charge and discharge the
petitioner for the offence p/u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of
P.C. Act, 1988 and discharge him from the case.
2
This Crl.R.P. coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner is accused No.1 in Spl.C.C.No.306/2010 pending in the City Civil & Sessions Court (CCCH-24), Bangalore. Respondent has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and another person, alleging commission of offences under Ss.7, 13 (1) (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and S.120-B of IPC. Cognizance was taken on 23.10.2010 and case was ordered to be registered. Process having been issued, accused persons appeared and were enlarged on bail. On 19.12.2011, learned advocate who appeared on behalf of accused No.1 has submitted that, he has no objection to frame charge. After hearing the learned advocate for accused No.2, finding that there are grounds to frame charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences, case was posted to 02.02.2012, for framing of charge. Nothing has transpired on 02.02.2012 and the case was adjourned to 03.03.2012, on which day also case was adjourned to 05.04.2012. 3 Accused No.1 through his learned advocate has filed application under S.227 & 228 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge. Noticing the proceedings which had taken place earlier, the application was summarily dismissed. Charge was framed and was read over in the language known to the accused and they having pleaded not guilty and having claimed trial, case was adjourned to 29.05.2012. This petition is directed against the said order.
2. Heard learned advocate on both sides and perused the record.
3. No doubt the learned advocate who appeared for accused No.1 has submitted on 19.12.2011 that charge may be framed. Before the charge could be framed, application under S.227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. was filed. In my opinion, the application filed having not been considered and decided, requires consideration by the learned Trial Judge. Since the application has been summarily rejected vide impugned order, the same being not a reasoned order, is unsustainable. 4
In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Trial Court is directed to hear the application filed by accused No.1 seeking discharge. The accused/learned counsel for the accused, shall argue the application, without seeking adjournment on any ground, on the next hearing date. The grounds raised in the application and the arguments addressed be considered and the matter decided at the earliest and within a period of one month from the next hearing date of the case.
Contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration by the learned Trial Judge.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*