Mohammed Ali @ Delhi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2013

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Ali @ Delhi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2013

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                                   1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

             DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

                                BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

                  CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7588/2013

BETWEEN :
---------------

MOHAMMED ALI @ DELHI
S/O. SABULAL
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
MUBARAK MOHALLA
CHYAMARAJANAGARA TOWN &
DIST., NOW R/A. DOOR No. 12/52
2ND CROSS, K P MOHALLA
CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN &
DIST. 571 313.                             ... PETITIONER

(BY Sri. MAHADEVA R K, ADV.)

AND :
--------

1.         THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
           REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE
           OFFICER, MANDI POLICE
           STATION, MYSORE - 570 008.

2.         Sri. SWAMYNATHAN
           HC 281, MANDI POLICE
                                      2




      STATION,
      MYSORE - 570 008.                         ... RESPONDENTS


(BY Sri. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 Cr.P.C. WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. No. 2124/2010 OF MANDI P.S.
AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

                            ORDER

Petitioner is accused No. 2 in crime No. 56/08 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. After investigation a charge sheet is filed and included the offence under Section 302 IPC in addition to the above referred offences. Since the petitioner was absconding a split charge sheet was filed in S.C. No. 182/2008 against accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 and in S.C. No. 207/2010 against accused No. 1. On contest the sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. Now a split charge sheet is filed against petitioner/accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 3 2124/2010. This Court in Crl.P. No. 5027/2013 enlarged the petitioner on bail.

2. Petitioner contends that the prosecution is relying on the same evidence on which they had relied on in the earlier proceedings against the other accused. It is not shown to me what is the difference in the evidence against this petitioner. When the Sessions Judge has already evaluated the evidence available on record and acquitted the other accused then the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the same. In identical circumstances Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Rajak Vs. State of W.B. (2007) 15 SCC 305 held as under:

"A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended."

3. Accordingly, the following;

ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed.

ii. Proceedings in C.C. No. 2124/2010 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Mysore, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. iii. Petitioner to be released forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

LRS.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court