Karnataka High Court
Sourav Banka vs State By on 2 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7994 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sourav Banka,
Son of Shivakumar Banka,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at Bye Pass Road,
7th Ward, Gonikoppal - 571 213,
Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District.
2. Jathin J.Shah,
Son of late Jyasukhalal,
Aged about 45 years,
4th Block, 6th Ward,
Cauvery Hills,
Gonikoppal South Kodagu - 571 213.
3. Hampanna,
Son of Obaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at 8th Cross,
H.T.Road,
Shivamurthy Layout,
Belavadi Mysore,
Secretary APMC Hunsur 571 105. ... Petitioners
(By Sri M.G.S.Kamal, Advocate)
AND:
State by
Gonikoppal Police Station,
Represented by State Public
Prosecutor, High Court of
Karnataka, Bangalore - 560 001. ...Respondent
(By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Cr.No.137/2017 of Gonikoppa P.S.,
Kodagu District for the offences p/u/S.272, 420 of IPC and
Sections 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act and etc.
This criminal petition, coming on for orders, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition filed by petitioner accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 272 and 420 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, registered in respondent Police Station in Crime No.137/2017.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as per the complaint averments made by one Sri Kibilira Harish Appaiah, who has lodged the first information before the Police is that, on coming to know that Sri Jathin Sha, accused No.2 and Sri Sourav Bhanka, accused No.1 who are running Cauvery Enterprises and Rose Mary International Trading by importing sub-standard pepper, by mixing the same with pepper in Kodagu, cheating the 3 growers. Hence, on 11.09.2017 Kodagu Growers Federation made protest and approached the Tahasildar and Assistant Director of Agricultural Produce Marketing Department and requested them to inspect R.M.C. godown. Accordingly, when PSI of Gonikoppal Police Station, Tahasildar and Assistant Director of Agricultural Produce Marketing Department opened the godown they found 300 to 400 bags of black powder and also found openly kept black powder and found machineries for preparing the powders. On the door of the godown affixed a paper wherein it is written as it is in the possession of the Committee (Samithi). When they questioned the RMC Secretary, he said that the earlier Secretary illegally given this godown to Sri Sourav Banka and Jathin Sha. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners accused Nos. 1 to 3 so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.
4. Counsel for the petitioners made the submission that false allegations are made against the petitioners and 4 there is false implication of the petitioners in the said case. He submitted that the petitioners are importing the pepper from the foreign country; they are having all the relevant documents; even the quality is also checked and verified when the materials were imported into India. It is also his contention that even with regard to the alleged sale is concerned, the sale is not to the individual and he refers to the documents produced that the sale is made to the persons mentioned in the invoices and even no individual come forward to give the complaint stating that the pepper powder is mixed with inferior quality powder and so it is noxious for the consumption as food article. Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the relevant documents even with regard to the allotment of the godown and he made the submission that it is not in illegal occupation. it is as per the said allotment the godown has been used. Hence it is his contention, in view of these materials it is only to tarnish the image of the petitioners in dealing with the said materials the complaint is filed. Hence, the learned counsel submitted, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that the petitioners may import the pepper from the foreign countries; even the quality may also be checked by the competent authority before giving the said pepper to the custody of the present petitioners, but after getting the pepper from the foreign country the petitioners involved in mixing the same with the inferior quality pepper preparing a powder and selling the same to the purchasers. Hence, he made the submission that the matter is under investigation, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is necessary and submitted, at this stage, petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the documents produced by the petitioners along with the petition so also the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioners. Perusing the complaint averments, firstly it is on suspicion. The complainant raised the suspicion that the petitioners herein are preparing the powder which is inferior in quality by mixing the pepper which they imported from foreign countries and 6 mixing the same with the pepper of the Kodagu, Madikeri and thereafter they are selling the same to the purchasers. Therefore, even according to the complaint allegations they made suspicion regarding the alleged act of preparing an inferior quality pepper powder by the petitioners herein. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, no purchasers have made any sort of complaint alleging that the powder that they have purchased from the petitioners herein is of an inferior quality and it is noxious which is not at all useful for human consumption. It is only the complainant raised such a contention in the compliant and so far as borrowing pepper from the foreign country, payment of the charges and regarding the quality of the said pepper are concerned, the petitioners have produced voluminous documents and the learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the documents from page Nos. 111 to 131 of the memorandum of this petition to show that it is the forwardal sale. The invoices were produced to show that how the materials which they borrowed from the foreign countries were sold under the said invoices. Therefore, looking to the documents produced by the 7 petitioners, prima facie, the concerned authority has already checked the quality of the said pepper and satisfied about the quality and so far as the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint because it is on suspicion, it is the matter for trial. The petitioners also contended that they are innocent persons not involved in committing such alleged offences and they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension of the prosecution is that the present petitioners are not cooperative with the investigation agency to proceed with further investigation in the matter. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, stringent conditions can be imposed for admitting the present petitioners into anticipated bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent Police is hereby directed to release petitioners 1 to 3 on bail in the event of their arrest for the said offences subject to the following conditions:
(i) Each of the petitioners accused shall have to execute a personal bond for Rs.2.00 lakhs, with one 8 solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting authority.
(ii) They shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iii) They have to mark their attendance before the concerned Police Station once in a month, preferably on Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of investigation and they have to cooperate with the investigation agency for further investigation so also for interrogation.
(iv) They have to appear before the concerned Court and to execute the personal bond so also the surety bond within 30 days from the date of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-