Karnataka High Court
Shri.M.R. Ravindra S/O Ramarao vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100023/2020
BETWEEN
SHRI.M.R. RAVINDRA S/O RAMARAO
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PVT . S ERVICE,
R/O: RELIANCE JI O INFOCOM LTD.,
BANGALORE, AREA MANAGER,
NOW AT: SARASW ATHI NAGAR,
NEAR PAN CHAMUK HI GANES H TEMPLE,
TQ AND DIST: DA VANAGERE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NITIN BOLABANDI, ADV OCAT E)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SPP, HI GH COURT OF KARNA TAKA,
DHARWAD, T HROUGH PSI,
COWLBAZA R PS, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397
(1) AND 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING T O SET ASID E THE ORDER
DTD.17/11/2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL J UDGE AND
JMFC, BALLARI IN C.C.N O.148/ 2015 INSOFAR AS DIS MISSING
THE APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE A CCUSED UNDER S ECTION
239 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING DISCHARGE FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 427, 431 OF I PC AND TO
ALLOW THE PRES ENT REVISION PETITION BY DISCHARGING
THE ACCUSED FOR THE S UPRA STATED OFFEN CE.
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
HEARING ON I .A., THIS DAY , THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking to quash the order dated 17.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.148/2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari (for short, 'the trial Court') dismissing the application filed under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for discharge for the offence punishable under Sections 427 and 431 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Executive Engineer, Ballari City Corporation, Ballari filed the first information with Cowlbazar police on 18.01.2014 against the accused stating that accused being the Manager representing M/s.Reliance Jio Infocom Limited Bengaluru, undertook the work of laying OFC -3- cables within the city of Ballari. While carrying out the work of laying OFC cables the accused dug the concrete roads on 05.12.2013 in Yaseen Sab Majidi Street, Dalwal Majidi and Tinkar Street, within Cowlbazar area, Ballari. The accused has not followed the conditions that are imposed to be followed while carrying out the work as per the work order issued in this regard. It is stated that by digging the above said three concrete roads, the accused caused loss of Rs.3,17,754/- to the Corporation. The accused was the Executive Manager who was responsible for carrying out the work and therefore requested the police to register the case and take up investigation. It is stated that accordingly the police registered the case and after completion of the investigation charge sheet is filed against the accused for the above said offence.
-4-
3. It is stated that the accused appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. The said application was came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2018 which is under challenge before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the Manager of M/s.Reliance Jio Infocom Limited Bengaluru obtained the work order on 05.12.2013 and he carried out the work of laying OFC cables in terms of the conditions mentioned in the work order. Even tough as per condition No.9, the petitioner was required to use H.D.D. method for laying OFC cables in main streets, -5- as per condition No.7 the petitioner was given an option to manually dug and fill up trench after completing the work. Accordingly, the work of laying OFC cables was undertaken from 13.01.2014 till 16.01.2014. The informant lodged the first information on 18.01.2014 without giving sufficient opportunity to clear and restore the road to its original condition. Subsequently, the petitioner restored the road to its original condition and therefore the allegations made against the petitioner will not stand for consideration since there are no sufficient materials to proceed against the accused and therefore he is to be discharged under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.
6. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has filed an application, I.A.No.1/2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to -6- condone the delay in preferring the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application, there was delay of 340 days and the same is to be condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the application as well as the revision petition.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the work order, specific conditions are imposed for the purpose of laying the OFC cables. As per condition No.9, the accused is required to adopt HHD method for laying OFC cable in the main roads and he is required to restore the manholes/inspection chambers to its original condition immediately. The spot mahazar drawn by the Investigating Officer discloses that the petitioner had dug the concrete roads in all the three places referred to in the first -7- information. In the first place width of the trench is 0.60 meters X 385 meters, in the second place width is 0.06 meters X 50 meters and at the 3 r d place it is 0.60 meters X and 260 meters. Even after digging the concrete road, same was not restored to its original condition. Moreover when such concrete roads are dug manually, huge loss is caused to the Corporation which is estimated at Rs.3,17,754/-. In the first information there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused regarding commission of the offence under Sections 431 and 427 of IPC. There are no grounds to discharge the accused at this stage.
8. Learned HCGP also submitted that no reasonable grounds are shown for condonation of delay of 340 long days in preferring the revision petition. Therefore, both interlocutory application and revision petition are to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
-8-
9. Perused the materials on record. Even though the trial Court records are not called, learned counsel for the petitioner produced all the relevant documents for perusal.
10. In the light of the rival submissions, the points that would arise for my consideration are,
1. "Whether the I.A.No.1/2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be allowed?"
2. Whether the impugned order dated 17.11.2018 passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside?"
11. Point No.1. : The petitioner filed I.A.No.1/2020 seeking to condone the delay of 340 days in preferring the revision petition stating that he is representing the Company in question and was working in Ballari at the time of registration of the criminal case, but subsequently he was transferred from Ballari and working in different locations where -9- the company has undertaken the work. Due to the nature of his job, he could not keep in track with the matter and he was not aware of dismissal of his application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. When he enquired with his Advocate, he came to know that his application was dismissed by the trial Court long back. Immediately, he sought legal opinion and filed the revision petition. The delay caused in preferring the revision petition is not either intentional or deliberate and it was for bonafide reasons.
12. I have considered the contention of the petitioner seeking condonation of the delay in preferring the revision petition. No doubt there is long delay of 340 days in preferring the revision petition. However, petitioner/accused is a Manager working in the Company. Under such circumstances, his explanation as cited in the application could not have been rejected out rightly. Moreover by condoning the
- 10 -
delay, the petitioner will be given an opportunity to put forth his contention on merits, which will not prejudice the respondent in any manner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that I.A.No.1/2020 is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.
13. Point No.2 : It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and therefore, he is to be discharged under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.P.C.
14. Section 239 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :
" 23 9. W h en ac cu s e d sh a l l be di s ch a r ge d. - If, upon considering the po lice report and the do cuments sent with it unde r section 173 and making such e xamination, if any, o f the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of be ing heard, the Magistrate considers the charge
- 11 -
against the accuse d to be gro undless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his re asons for so do ing. "
( E mp h as i s s up p l ied )
15. Bare reading of this section that the accused could be discharged when the Magistrate considers that the charge against the accused is groundless. It is the settled proposition of law that, if there are prima-facie materials to proceed against the accused, he cannot be discharged at the initial stage without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused as contended.
16. In the present case, it is the specific contention taken by the complainant in the first information that the accused dug three cement concrete roads and caused loss of Rs.3,17,754/-. It is stated that in Yaseensab Masjid Road 762 square meters, in Dalaval Masjid street- 762 square meters and in tinker street 762 square meters of roads were
- 12 -
dug which has been resulted in loss to the Corporation. The spot mahazar drawn by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panchas discloses that the concrete road measuring 0.60 meters X 385 meters was dug in Yaseensab Masjid street. 0.06 meters X 50 meters in Dalwal Masjid street, 0.06 meters X 260 meters in tinker street. It is stated that all these streets were having cement concrete roads and the same were dug by the petitioner to carryout the work.
17. As per the work order dated 05.12.2013, the accused can opt to lay the open trench by manually digging the roads wherever it is necessary and immediately the road is to be restored to its original condition. As per condition No.9, HHD method is to be adopted for laying cables in main roads and manhole/inspection chambers are to be restored to its original condition. As per condition No.4, the public
- 13 -
road is to be restored to its original condition immediately after completion of the work. If the allegations made against the accused are taking into consideration in the light of the first information, spot mahazar and the conditions found in the work order, there are prima-facie materials to support the contention of the prosecution. By no stretch of imagination it can be said at this stage that allegations are groundless to proceed against the accused. When prima-facie materials are placed before the Court the accused cannot be discharged without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its contention. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise revisional jurisdiction to discharge the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
18. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it has considered materials on record and proceeded to dismiss the application
- 14 -
keeping in mind the scope of Section 329 of Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. I answer the above point in the negative, as a result, revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
In view of dismissal of revision petition, I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2021 is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh/ckk