Karnataka High Court
A R Srinivasa vs State By Pete Police Station on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 647 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
A R SRINIVASA
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
EDITOR : MANNIA VASANE WEEKLY PAPER SINGAPURA
ROAD, KUGVE
AMBAPURA, SAGAR TALUK - 577 401.
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY PETE POLICE STATION
SAGAR CITY, SAGAR - 577 401.
REP. BY SPP. HIGH COURT
BANGALORE
Digitally signed ...RESPONDENT
by NARAYANA
UMA
(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.2.2017 PASSED BY
THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA
SITTING AT SAGAR IN CRL.A.NO.10018/2016 TO THE EXTENT
REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SAGAR DATED 29.11.2016 TO DECIDE THE
CRIMINAL CASE REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.144/2010 DATED 29-11-2016 AFRESH AFTER COMPLIANCE
OF SECTION 196 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 24.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Court below
in recording the conviction for the offence under Seciton
502(2) and 507 of IPC, where the petitioner had been
convicted for the above said offences.
2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth
as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. A private complaint came to be filed by R.V. Sadashiva
before the Magistrate stating that he belongs to the
Havyaka community and he is one of the disciples of Sri
Ramachandrapura Mutt. It is stated that many devotees
are following the customs of the said Mutt. He further
states that the accused being a publisher of the weekly
magazine namely 'Mannina Vasane' had published a
defamatory article against the guru of Sri
Ramachandrapura Mutt alleging certain facts which are
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
far away from the truth. By publishing the said
statements, he tried to develop enmity amongst the
community, therefore, a suitable action may be initiated
against the petitioner / accused. Further, it is stated
that, on 08.11.2009, he not only published the said
article in the weekly magazine but also distributed
pamphlets to the public at large.
4. Based on the said complaint, the learned Magistrate
referred the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Pursuant to the order of the Court, FIR came to be
registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime
No.275/2009 for the above said offences.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked
21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. On the other hand, six
documents were marked on behalf of the accused as
Exs.D1 to D3. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record, recorded the
conviction for the offences stated supra. On appeal
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
being filed, the same was confirmed by the Appellate
Court.
6. Heard Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the order of remanding the matter for
compliance under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') and to proceed with the
case afresh and dispose of the matter in accordance with
the law to the Trial Court is contrary to the said provision
and the same is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that the order of not obtaining the
sanction before taking cognizance is not a procedure,
however, it is a mandatory requirement. Having not
followed the said procedure is not irregularity, but, it is
illegal. Therefore, taking cognizance has to be gone.
However, the Appellate Court considering it as regularity
and referred the matter to the Trial Court is unjust and
erroneous. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Court
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
required to be set aside. Making such submissions, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the
petition.
9. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State
controverted the same and he further submitted that the
said sanction from the Government can also be obtained
even at the belated stage. Therefore, the order of
remanding to seek sanction would be appropriate and
relevant and there is no infirmity in the said order.
Having said thus, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the
petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Appellate
Court in remanding the matter, it is necessary to extract
Section 196(1A) of Cr.P.C, which reads as under:
"196. Prosecution for offences against the
State and for criminal conspiracy to commit
such offence.--(1) No Court shall take cognizance
of--
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
(1A) No Court shall take cognizance of--
(a) any offence punishable under section 153B or
sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
except with the previous sanction of the Central
Government or of the State Government or of the
District Magistrate."
11. On reading of the above said provision, it makes it clear
that, to take cognizance of offence under Section 505(2)
of IPC, sanction either from the Central Government or
State Government or District Magistrate, of course, is
mandatory and necessary.
12. In this case, it is needless to say that, such sanction
from the competent authority has not been obtained by
the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court took
cognizance of the said offences without obtaining the
sanction and recorded the conviction. Whether such an
act of the Trial Court is justified or not, is the question
required to be dealt with in accordance with law.
13. As the provision itself would indicate that before taking
cognizance, it is mandatory that the sanction has to be
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
obtained from the competent authority to prosecute the
person for the offence under Section 505(2) of IPC. The
Investigating Officer has not obtained the sanction from
the competent authority, the Trial Court ought not to
have taken cognizance for the offence under Section
505(2) of IPC. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance
in respect of Section 505(2) of IPC does not survive for
consideration and moreover, the order of remand to take
cognizance would not arise after passing the judgment.
Therefore, the order of remand passed by the Appellate
Court does not survive and it needs to be set aside.
14. The complainant has filed a complaint in respect of
Section 505(2) and Section 507 of IPC. As regards
Section 505(2) of IPC, has been answered as stated
above, it is necessary to Section 507 of IPC.
15. As regards Section 507 of IPC is concerned, the same
reads as under:
"507. Criminal intimidation by an
anonymous communication:- Whoever
commits the offence of criminal intimidation
by an anonymous communication, or having
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
taken precaution to conceal the name or
abode of the person from whom the threat
comes, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, in addition to the
punishment provided for the offence by the
last preceding section."
16. On reading of the above said provision, it makes it clear
that criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
or having taken the precaution to conceal the name or
abode of the person from whom the threat comes.
17. Admittedly, in the present case, the allegation made
against the present petitioner is that he had published
defamatory remarks or statements against the sheer of
Mutt and also distributed the pamphlets by publishing
the defamatory statements.
18. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused
has distributed the pamphlets or published the
defamatory articles in his weekly magazine has to be
considered by the evidence of all the witnesses.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
19. PW.1 being the complainant had deposed in his evidence
that there were some defamatory statements in the
weekly magazine published by the accused. He admitted
in his evidence that similar articles were published in the
weekly magazine called 'Hi Bengaluru' and also in the
'Times of India' daily newspaper. He further admitted
that he had not taken any action either against the
newspaper or magazine. He further admitted that he
had not seen where the pamphlets were printed and
published. However, he stressed that pamphlets were
being distributed by the accused.
20. Similarly, PWs.5, 6 and 10 are the independent
witnesses, they have stated that the accused had given
magazines and pamphlets and asked them to give their
opinion. However, in the cross-examination, they
admitted that they could not produce any documents to
show that they were present at the place where it is
alleged that the pamphlets and magazines were given to
them.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8575
CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017
21. Similarly, PW.11 the Investigating Officer though he
stated that he seized the magazine at the house of the
accused, he did not secure the information regarding the
place where the pamphlets were printed and published.
22. On careful reading of the evidence of above witnesses,
the ingredients of Section 507 of IPC cannot be attracted
against the accused. However, the Courts below have
concurrently held that the accused has been found guilty
in respect of the offences stated supra are contrary to
the evidence on record. Therefore, the same is liable to
be set aside.
23. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.144/2010 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar and the judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed in Crl.A.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8575 CRL.RP No. 647 of 2017 No.10018/2016 by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, Sitting at Sagar are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 505(2) and 507 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31