Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Gurumurthi Doreswami Nadar on 27 March, 2023
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100187 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CAMP POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI, THROUGH
ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
O/O THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT.
(BY SRI V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
GURUMURTHI DORESWAMI NADAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O TUTTIKORIN, CHIDAMBARAM,
TAMIL NADU STATE-628001
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA ...RESPONDENT
DANDAGAL
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
Location: HIGHCOURT OF
KARNATAKA-DHARWAD
BENCH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) &
Date: 2023.03.31 13:35:03
+0530 (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2015, PASSED BY THE X-ADDL.
DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN S.C.NO.309/2006, BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND TO DIRECT THE TRIAL
COURT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE AND PROCEED WITH THE MATTER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ETC.,.
-2-
CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
SHRI T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State is before this Court under section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 07.11.2015, passed by the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, acquitting the respondent/accused No.14, for the offences punishable under sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C read with section 120(B) of IPC.
2. Facts leading to the case are that, on 23.06.1994, PW.3-Shivaji, an employee of the Ratnakar Bank has tendered a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the State Bank of India for depositing to its account; PW.4-employee of the State Bank of India on counting the said notes found a fake note of Rs.100/- denomination bearing No.JLR196456, which was marked as M.O.1. Because of this, law was set into motion in Crime No.79/1994 before Belagavi Camp Police. After investigation, charge sheet -3- CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018 was laid against accused Nos.1 to 14, in S.C.No.167/1996. During trial, some of the accused were absconded; two separate cases have been registered by splitting S.C.No.167/1996 i.e., S.C.No.239/1998 and S.C.No.309/2006. Respondent/accused No.14 is accused in S.C.No.309/2006. The main case in S.C.No.239/1998 and S.C.No.167/1996 were ended in acquittal. The Trial Court was of the view that even if the prosecution lead evidence, it will of no consequence and it will end in acquittal and for this reason, the request of the prosecution was turned down and the trial was concluded on 07.11.2015. Since from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5, Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 & 2, no incriminating evidence was found against respondent/accused No.14. Statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. By the impugned judgment, respondent/accused No.14 was acquitted of the charges.
3. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, State has filed this appeal on the ground that the procedure -4- CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018 contemplated under section 273 of Cr.P.C., section 225 to 237 and section 313 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court ought to have considered not only documentary evidence, but also the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5, which are made available on record. There is negligence on the part of the Trial Court in not noticing Chapter IV of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968.
4. The matter is coming for admission before us. Hence, the matter is heard for admission.
5. It is the contention of Sri V.M.Banakar, the learned Addl. SPP that non following the procedures by the Trial Court is resulted in recording acquittal, which is not proper and opportunity needs to be given to the prosecution to lead evidence against accused No.14 and sought for allowing the appeal.
6. We have perused the impugned judgment and material available before this Court. -5- CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018
7. It is pertinent to note that the charge sheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 14 in S.C.No.167/1996. Trial was conducted in that case and original records of this case were made available to the Trial Court. Some of the accused since absconded, case was split up, separate charge sheet was filed in S.C.No.239/1998. This case was also ended in acquittal by judgment dated 09.10.2015. Since accused No.14/respondent was found absconded, case was split up and registered in S.C.No.309/2006. The evidence recorded in S.C.No.239/1998 was also made available to the Trial Court.
8. As seen from the records, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5, marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 and 2. Since there is no incriminating circumstances available from these witnesses, examination of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with and the Trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment on 07.11.2015 in recording acquittal.
-6-CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018
9. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment. As noticed by the Trial Court, the entire case was ended in acquittal as against remaining accused. There is no incriminating material available to examine respondent/accused No.14 under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Hence the argument of learned Addl. SPP that respondent/accused No.14 has to be questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C. holds no water.
10. Further, section 273 of Cr.P.C. though contemplates presence of accused at the time of recording evidence during trial, here in this case PWs.1 to 5 have been examined by the prosecution in the presence of accused. Hence, there is compliance of this provision of law.
11. The evidence let in by the prosecution in the main case can also be taken as evidence under section 299 of Cr.P.C., if accused is absconding since the said provision provides recording of evidence in the absence of -7- CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018 accused. Keeping the provisions under section 273 and 299 of Cr.P.C. into consideration, the evidence considered by the Trial Court is not in violation of either of the provisions.
12. As regards the procedure contemplated under Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. for trial of a case before the Court of Sessions, procedural aspects have been followed by the Trial Court and we do not find any force in the submission made by the learned Addl. SPP.
13. As far as the submission of learned Addl. SPP with regard to non following the procedure as contemplated in Chapter IV of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice is concerned, procedure is contemplated in respect of the absconded accused. Hence, the same is not applicable to the case on hand since presence of accused was secured for trial.
14. It is pertinent to note that serious allegation in the charge sheet is against accused Nos.1 and 2 and 7. -8- CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018 The allegation against accused No.14 is that he has used services of accused Nos.9 to 13 for circulation of fake note. The trial of the case against accused Nos.9 to 13 also ended in acquittal and this respondent/accused No.14 is similarly placed with them. Then the end result even after full fledged trial will meet the same destination. As we found from the evidence, nothing is available against accused No.14 to bring home the guilt, the reasons recorded by the Trial Court are based on the evidence made available before it. We do not find any error or illegality committed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
15. I.A.No1/2019 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 350 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit and the reasons assigned in the affidavit are not acceptable. Accordingly I.A.No.1/2019 stands rejected. -9- CRL.A No. 100187 of 2018
Hence the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay also.
SD JUDGE SD JUDGE MRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28