Karnataka High Court
Mr A P N Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2018
1
CRL.RP. No.1166/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1166/2018
BETWEEN:
MR.A.P.N.RAO
S/O A.N.SURYANARAYAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
# 38/39A, 9TH MAIN ROAD
2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE
BANSHANKARI
BENGALURU-560050. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. DIWAKARA.K, ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
KOLAR
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. VENKATESH.S.ARABATTI, SPL. PP]
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2018
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOLAR IN SPL.C.C.NO.08/2016.
2
CRL.RP. No.1166/2018
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is accused No.2 in Spl.C.C.No.8/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar. Petitioner and others were charge sheeted in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c),(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120(B) and 420 of IPC.
2. On 16.10.2018, when the matter was listed for framing the charge, petitioner remained absent and his counsel filed application for exemption from his appearance. The trial Court, by the impugned order held that due to the absence of the petitioner it could not frame the charge and rejected the application. Further, the trial Court forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner and his surety, ordered to register the criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and his surety and also issued NBW against the petitioner.
3CRL.RP. No.1166/2018
3. The office has raised objection regarding maintainability of the petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court in Sadananda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1985 KAR 2813 submits that order of forfeiture of the bond under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. is a final order and therefore, revision petition lies.
5. Section 446 of Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure to be followed after forfeiture of the bond. Whereas, Section 446A of Cr.P.C. which is included by way of amendment under Act 63 of 1980 with effect from 23.9.1980 provides for cancellation/forfeiture of the bond.
6. In the case on hand, the trial Court has not passed the order under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. But the order is passed under Section 446A of Cr.P.C. for forfeiture of the bond. The stage of issuing notice to the surety and holding the enquiry as required under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. arises only after registering the case under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. 4 CRL.RP. No.1166/2018
7. In Sadananda's case referred to supra, the revision petition was filed against the order of imposition of penalty after forfeiting the bond. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable.
8. Since the order in question is in the nature of interlocutory order, upholding the office objection the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp