Karnataka High Court
Laxminarasimha S/O Vajendra Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2617/2012
BETWEEN:
Laxminarasimha,
S/O Vajendra Rao,
Aged 40 years,
Occ: Assistant Engineer, in PWD Office,
Raichur District. .. PETITIONER
(by Shri Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
Through Lokayukta Police,
Raichur,
Represented by Additional State
Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Circuit Bench at Gulbarga. .. RESPONDENT
(by Shri A.Syed Habeeb, Special Public Prosecutor)
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
praying to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
6.11.2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur in
Spl.Case. No.2/2010 insofar as it relates to taking of action
under section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read
with section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 and etc.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court
made the following :-
ORDER
The present petition coming on for admission is heard for final disposal, given the peculiar circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner herein was cited as a prosecution witness in a case for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity). The petitioner, during the course of his deposition at the trial, was treated as a partially hostile witness and after the proceedings, the court took exception to the petitioner's conduct and has initiated proceedings for giving false evidence, while 3 purportedly taking cognizance of an offence under Section 344 of the Cr.PC read with Section 193 of the IPC. The learned Counsel has questioned this procedure. He would submit that in terms of Section 344, it was open for the Court of Sessions to have taken cognizance and to have tried the petitioner summarily as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 344 of the Cr.PC. It was also open for the court to have invoked Section 340 of the Cr.PC and to have lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate insofar as the offence of giving false evidence is concerned, which would have been tried by a magistrate. Since the court below had invoked Section 344 of the Cr.PC, it was incumbent on the court below to have summarily tried the petitioner for the offence and it is inexplicable that Section 193 of the IPC is also cited, when in fact, Section 193 provides an express bar for the court to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction until the case has been committed to it by the magistrate under 4 the Code. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would seek that the entire proceedings be set at naught.
3. While the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to oppose the petition and would submit that the objection raised is merely a technical objection and the court has not committed any infirmity insofar as further proceedings are concerned and it is open for the court below to try the petitioner summarily as provided under Section 344(1) of the Cr.PC. The mere invocation of Section 193 of the IPC does not have any bearing on the proceedings and not much could be made out of the same by the court having indicated that the proceedings are initiated under Section 344 of the Cr.PC read with Section 193 of the IPC.
4. While it may be possible that the court below could have exercised any one of the options available, namely, that the proceedings could have been initiated under Section 340 of the Cr.PC, in which event, the petitioner would have been tried 5 by a magistrate in the manner prescribed therein or the court could have tried him summarily under Section 344. The court having chosen the second option, the mention of Section 193, therefore, was otiose and inexplicable. This, by itself, would not render the proceedings an infirmity. In any event, to avoid any confusion, it is made clear that since the court has expressly invoked Section 344 of the Cr.PC, it should be understood that the court would try the petitioner summarily and the question of remitting the matter to the Magistrate or filing a complaint before the Magistrate may not arise.
The court merely having taken cognizance under Section 344 of the Cr.PC shall expeditiously try the petitioner for the offence alleged as he is a government official and the consequences that would follow on account of these proceedings are of a serious nature.
Since the petitioner has been issued with a show-cause notice, but may not have been heard by the court below insofar as his explanation is concerned, the court below shall, in the 6 first instance, afford an opportunity to the petitioner to state his case before proceeding with the trial, if at all.
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of. The learned Special Public Prosecutor is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv