Karnataka High Court
Sri K Vijaya Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
1 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3905 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O P. KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT HARANDOOR VILLAGE
GUNAVATHI POST, KOPPA TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SRINGERI
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAYAKA.V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IS CONCERNED IN S.C.NO.42/2020 PENDING
BEFORE THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU U/S 62, 86, 87 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT
ARISING OUT OF THE F.O.C.NO.10/2005-06 REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
*****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings insofar as petitioner is concerned (accused No.3) in S.C.No.42/2020 pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur under Sections 62, 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act arising out of FOC No.10/2005-06.
2. The said FOC No.10/2005-06 was registered by the Range Forest Officer, Sringeri, Chikmagalur District contending that on 12.07.2005 at about 3.30 p.m., near Talagur Bus Stand, the Range Forest Officer conducted a raid and found the accused stated therein with illegal possession of 7.00 kgs sandalwood worth Rs.10,000/- without license or permit. The first accused was sent to judicial custody. The other two accused including the petitioner who is the third accused were absconding and as such, there was a split charge 3 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020 sheet laid and proceedings conducted against the accused No.1 who pleaded not guilty.
3. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and marked 3 exhibits and 6 material objects and finally the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur by way of its judgment dated 12.11.2007 in S.C.No.227/2006 acquitted the said accused No.1 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offences committed by the accused and held that prosecution has not established the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
4. This Judgment having been passed on 12.11.2007, the petitioner-accused No.3 who had been absconding was apprehended and the proceedings continued against him. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner is before this Court contending that once accused No.1 had been acquitted after trial, the question 4 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020 of proceedings continuing against the petitioner- accused No.3 would not at all arise and on this basis Sri.Balakrishna.M.R, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings in S.C.No.42/2020 have to be quashed.
5. Per contra Sri.Vinayaka.V.S, learned HCGP would submit that the petitioner who was absconding cannot be permitted to take advantage of him h having absconded and accused No.1 having been acquitted, inasmuch as the petitioner would not have stood trial for the offences alleged against him. On this ground, he submits that the petition as filed is required to be rejected.
6. Having heard the arguments of Sri.Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 and Sri.Vinayaka.V.S, learned HCGP for the respondent, the points that would arise for consideration in this petition are: 5 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020
6.1. In the event of split charge sheet having been filed and the accused standing trial were to be acquitted, can the other accused who was absconding claim the benefit of such acquittal and seek for quashing of the proceedings?
6.2. Whether the said benefit would arise in all circumstances or the benefit would have to be restricted ?
6.3. What order?
7. I answer the above points as under.
8. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: In the event of split charge sheet having been filed and the accused standing trial were to be acquitted, can the other accused who was absconding claim the benefit of such acquittal and seek for quashing of the proceedings? 8.1. Admittedly there was a complaint filed in FOC No.10/2005-06, subsequently raid was conducted as against three accused as regards offences under Section 62, 86, 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. Accused No.1 had been apprehended and was sent to judicial 6 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020 custody and the other accused of whom petitioner is accused No.3 had absconded. It is on account of the fact that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not traceable, the charge sheet was split up and the proceedings continued against accused No.1 who had been apprehended. In the said proceedings evidence had been led and the Sessions Court after considering the matter has acquitted accused NO.1 by way of a detailed Judgment dated 12.11.2007.
9. Admittedly, there is no appeal filed against the said Judgment. In view of the fact of such acquittal, I am of the considered view that even though accused No.3-petitioner herein had absconded, the evidence that would be led against accused No.3 would be the same as that led as against accused No.1. The State having accepted the acquittal and not challenged the same, no purpose would be served by 7 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020 continuation of the proceedings as against accused No.3-petitioner once accused No.1 has been acquitted of the same crime as that alleged against accused No.3. The judgment which has been passed is a reasoned order and on the merits of the matter taking into account the consideration of the evidence led and the defences urged, the Sessions Court categorically has come to the conclusion that the State has failed to prove the offences having been committed by accused No.1 in that matter.
10. In view of the same, once the order has been passed on merit, the same order would enure to the benefit of the petitioner also. More so, in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Hassan @ Mohammed Hassan -v- The State of Karnataka passed in W.P.55102/2017 DD 14.12.2017, more particularly paragraph 12 thereof. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation -v- 8 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020
Akhilesh Singh reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 (para 13) and in the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun Muneer -v- State of Karnataka by Kumarswamy Layout Police reported in 2002(1) KCCR 1 (para 14).
11. Applying the said dicta to the present case, the proceedings as against petitioner-accused NO.3 cannot also be continued for the very same reason.
12. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2: Whether the said benefit would arise in all circumstances or the benefit would have to be restricted ? 12.1. It is not in all cases the benefit of acquittal of one of the accused standing trial can extend to the other accused. Such benefit could extend only in the event accused standing trial has been acquitted on account of the prosecution not proving the offence having been committed by the accused standing trial. In the event of the 9 CRL.P. No.3905 OF 2020 proceedings being dismissed for non- prosecution or similar other reason i.e. to say that the order of acquittal is not passed on merit but for technical reason, the benefit cannot be said to accrue to the accused not standing trial and the absconding accused cannot take the benefit of an order passed on technical grounds to claim the benefit of acquittal.
13. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3: What Order?
13.1. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER 13.1.1. The Criminal Petition is allowed. 13.1.2. The proceedings in S.C. No.42/2020 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur insofar as the petitioner is concerned are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*/ln