Karnataka High Court
Sri G R Jayanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6621 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SRI G.R.JAYANNA
S/O LATE SRI.G.RUDRAPPA
33 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/AT SIDDAPURA,
CHALLAKERE-TQ PIN-577522. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: HARISH H V, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHALLAKERE POLICE
CHALLAKERE-577522
CHITRADURGA DIST. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
-----
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.10.2012 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN
CRL.R.P.NO.19/2012.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
Petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Challakere dated 10.10.2012 whereby the objection raised by the petitioner to maintain the Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. without prior sanction of the Government has been rejected.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the notification issued by the Government vide reference No.OE : 381 PPE 2007, Bengaluru, dated 25th September, 2007 in order to file a revision, the respondent-State ought to have obtained prior sanction of the Government. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition (No.18/2012) filed by the State under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is legally incompetent and without jurisdiction.
3. I have considered this submission and perused the notification. There is nothing in the notification to suggest that to prefer a revision against the orders passed by the Criminal Courts, the Public Prosecutor is required to take sanction from the State. By virtue of the power vested with the Public 3 Prosecutor under Section 24 of Cr.P.C., the public prosecutor is required to conduct the case on behalf of the State. Once the case is entrusted to the Public Prosecutor, he is required to take necessary steps to advance the cause of justice on behalf of the State. Under the said circumstance, public prosecutor is not required to obtain sanction of the Government to prefer revision at every intermediate stage. Even otherwise, the State or Government having not interdicted the action of the Public Prosecutor in filing the revision, it has to be held that the State Government has ratified the action of its officers or servants.
4. That apart, Section 397 of Cr.P.C. invests power with the High Court and Sessions Court to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. Hence, by virtue of the said powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., the High Court or Sessions Court can call for the record 4 before the inferior court suo motu even without an application of the parties to the proceedings. Under the said circumstance, the technicality put forth by the petitioner cannot be a reason to hold that the Public Prosecutor is not entitled to prefer a revision against the interlocutory application passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs