Karnataka High Court
B Shashidar vs Mr Ravi Shankar A V on 2 March, 2016
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.24 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
B.SHASHIDAR
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA.Y.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
NTS, HAL, MARATHHALLI,
BENGALURU-560037.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIREESH, ADV. FOR
SRI.S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR.RAVI SHANKAR.A.V.
S/O LATE A.V.RAJU,
39 YEARS,
GENERAL MANAGER,
M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU,
INDIA PVT. LTD.,
BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
RAMANAGARA-562 159.
2. VIKRAM.T.V.
S/O T.S.VENKATRAMU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU,
2
INDIA PVT. LTD.,
BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
RAMANAGARA-562 159.
3. DEEPAK.W.R.
S/O JOHN REGO,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
M/S STANZEN TOYOTETSU
INDIA PVT. LTD.,
BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
RAMANAGARA-562 159.
4. STATE BY BIDADI P.S.
RAMANAGARA-562 109,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.J.KANIKARAJ, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R4)
-0-0-0-0-
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2015 PASSED ON THE
FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., AT RAMANAGAR IN
SPL.C.NO.54/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 OF IPC
AND 3(1) (10) OF SC/ST ACT BY BIDADI POLICE BY
ALLOWING THE PETITION.
3
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner since the case is at the stage of admission.
2. The order dated 3.12.2015 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagar in Spl.C.No.54/2015 dealing with the case arising out of the provisions of the SC/ST(PVOA) Act, 1989 is called in question.
3. The petitioner is the complainant and the respondents are accused in the said case. An application had been filed under Section 227 read with Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. Congnizance had been taken for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/St(PVOA) Act,1989 and Section 323 read with Section 4 34 of IPC. On considering the said application, the learned Judge has passed a detailed order discharging the accused.
4. It is stated that on 19.3.2011 during the second shift, a team member by name Kusumadhar while discharging his duties met with an accident due to the oil leakage from one of the machines. The complainant and accused who were employees of the company took the injured to the hospital. The complainant went to the spot and found that the accused persons were stumping him with legs. When he enquired, they slapped him and abused him with reference to his caste stating that he belonged to Bhovi Community. In this regard C.Misc.No.120/11 is registered. After concluding the investigation, the police chose to file "B" report, which was challenged by filing a protest memo. After recording the sworn statement of the witnesses and perusing the record, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that no prima-facie material are forthcoming in order to frame charges.
5
5. In fact, the learned Judge has examined the entire materials placed on record and has come to the conclusion that no trial before charge is to be held as the procedure to be adopted by the Special Court is one pertaining to the trial in a sessions Court.
6. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Vidyadharan .vs. State of Kerala in case No.Appeal(Crl.)278/1997 disposed of on 14.11.2003, wherein it is specifically stated that trial in a special Court dealing with the offences arising out of SC/ST(PVOA)Act, 1989 will have to be conducted only in the manner provided under Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the provisions found in Chapter XVIII pertain to the trial of cases before the Court of Sessions. Hence, the question to hold trial before charge does not arise. In this view of the matter Sections 244 and 245 are also not applicable to such trial. In fact, the 6 learned Judge has examined the entire material placed on record in depth and has come to the conclusion that no case is made out to frame charge. Accordingly, no good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court.
7. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as unfit for admission.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-