Bangalore District Court
Karnataka State By vs Balasubramanyaraj Ars on 29 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 29th day of August 2018
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.516/2015
BETWEEN:-
APPELLANT/ Karnataka State by
Parappana Agrahara P.S.,
Bengaluru
(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/ Balasubramanyaraj Ars,
S/o.Late Niranjanraj Ars,
48 years, 2nd Cross, BTM 2nd Stage,
Near P.M.Choultry,
Bannergatta Road,
Bangalore.
JUDG MENT
The State of Karnataka through Parappana Agrahara P.S.,
preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 377 of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the court of
I - A.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.7636/2013, dated 29-12-2014
for offences punishable under Section 177, 224 of I.P.C., (herein
after referred as impugned judgment and order).
2
Crl.A.No.516/2015
3. In the Appeal, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing
for the State contended that offences punishable under Section
177, 224 I.P.C., are proved. However, without imposing separate
punishment, awarding six months imprisonment for both offences
are not sustainable under law. For offence punishable under
Section 177 of I.P.C., punishment is up-to two years
imprisonment and fine or both. For an offence punishable under
Section 224 I.P.C., is up-to two years imprisonment and fine or
both. Trial court ought to have awarded higher punishment.
Punishment awarded for six months imprisonment is lesser one.
Technically, impugned judgment and order of conviction is not
sustainable. For the said reasons, the Learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State prayed to set aside the impugned
judgment and order of conviction.
4. Along with appeal, certified copy of the impugned
judgment and order of conviction of the trial court is furnished.
5. Despite repeated issue of notice, of this appeal, from
the date of petition, it was not served to the respondent. No
satisfactory steps was taken by the State to serve the same to the
respondent. Hence, respondent remained absent.
3
Crl.A.No.516/2015
6. Lower court record is not available as the same was
not called for.
7. Arguments not submitted.
8. Perused the impugned judgment and order of
conviction of the trial court.
9. As the allegation made in the memorandum of Appeal
is only with respect to quantum of punishment, the points that
would arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether in the light of evidence and
material brought before the court, Learned
Magistrate is justified in convicting the
accused for the offences punishable U/s.177
& 224 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether impugned judgment and order call
for interference in this appeal?
3. What Order?
10. It is answered for the aforesaid points as under:-
Point No.1: In Affirmative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3: As per final order below,
for the following:-
4
Crl.A.No.516/2015
REASONS
11. POINT NOs.1 & 2:- Section 177 I.P.C., reads as
follows:-
"177.Furnishing false information:-
Whoever, being legally bound to furnish
information on any subject to any public
servant, as such, furnishes, as true,
information on the subject which he knows
or has reason to believe to be false, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both;".
12. Section 224 of I.P.C., reads as follows:-
"Resistance or obstruction by a person to his
lawful apprehension:- Whoever intentionally
offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to
the lawful apprehension of himself for any
offence with which he is charged or of which
he has been convicted, or escapes or
attempts to escape from any custody in
which he is lawfully detained for any such
offence, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both".
Punishment prescribed for the above two Sections are
"imprisonment or fine or with both", but not imprisonment and
fine as alleged in the memorandum of Appeal by the State.
5
Crl.A.No.516/2015
13. So far as the order of the Trial court granting benefit of
set off, to the accused, for the period of judicial custody, with the
sentence awarded is concerned, it is just and necessary to
consider Section 428 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:-
"428. Period of detention undergone
by the accused to be set off against
the sentence of imprisonment.:- Where
an accused person has, on conviction, been
sentenced to imprisonment for a term, not
being imprisonment in default of payment
of fine, the period of detention, if any,
undergone by him during the investigation,
inquiry or trial of the same case and before
the date of such conviction, shall be set off
against the term of imprisonment imposed
on him on such conviction, and the liability
of such person to undergo imprisonment
on his on such conviction, and the liability
of such person to undergo imprisonment
on such conviction shall be restricted to the
remainder, if any, of the term of
imprisonment imposed on him".
Direction under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., to set off the period
of judicial custody of the accused person is mandatory. Hence,
allegation made by the State in the Appeal with respect to set off
given to the accused by the trial court is not correct.
14. In view of the punishment prescribed for Sections 177
and 224 I.P.C., imprisonment for six months, awarded by the trial
6
Crl.A.No.516/2015
court is sufficient. Merely on the ground that, two counts of the
sentence is not shown in the impugned judgment and order of
conviction, it is not just and proper to interfere into the well
reasoned, legally sustainable impugned judgment and order of
conviction of the trial court.
15. Perused the impugned judgment and order of
conviction. There are no legally acceptable grounds available in
the Appeal to interfere into the well reasoned impugned judgment
and order of conviction. Accordingly, point Nos.1 & 2 are
answered in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative.
16. POINT NO.3 :- In view of findings on the above
points No.1 to 3, this criminal appeal is devoid of merits and same
is liable to be dismissed by confirming impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence. Hence, following order is made:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal filed U/s.377 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7 Crl.A.No.516/2015 29.12.2014 passed in C.C.No.7636/2013 on the file of I-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed.
Send copy of this Judgment to the trial court for reference.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of August, 2018.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.