Karnataka High Court
Ashwin Kumar Kesari vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6007/2011
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6437/2011
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6007/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Ashwin Kumar Kesari,
S/o Sushil Kumar Kesari,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Business,
R/at Ramapura,Girijaffar Circle,
Laksha Road, Varanasi (Uttara Pradesh)
2. Ritesh Kesari,
S/o Sushil Kumar Kesari,
Age: Major,
Occ: Business,
R/at Ramapura, Girijaffer Circle,
Laksha Road,
Varanashi (Uttara Pradesh)
...Petitioners
(By Shri.R.B. Deshpande, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By Holalkere Police Station
... Respondent
(By Shri.Chetan Desai, HCGP)
2
****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.318/2011 pending on the file of the
Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6437/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Siddalinga @ Siddeshi,
S/o Rudramuni,
Aged about 25 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o Bettada Road,
Ramagiri Village,
Holalkere Taluka,
Chitradurga District.
2. Ravi
S/o Govinda Raj Chettiyar
Major, Occ: Business
R/o No.7, Kurubarapete,
Behind Cottonpet Police
Station, Bangalore.
3. K.Suresh,
S/o Kannan Chettiyar,
Aged about 31 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o K.P. Agrahara,
2nd Main, 1st Cross,
Magadi Road, Bangalore-21.
4. B.Anand @ Anand Kumar,
S/o Janardhana,
Aged about 46 years,
Occ: Business,
3
R/o Nimbooled Area,
Kachiguda Main Road,
H.No.3/2/179, Hyderabad (AP).
...Petitioners
(By Shri.R.B. Deshpande, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By Holalkere Police Station
... Respondent
(By Shri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.318/2011 pending on the file of the
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Holalkere.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
These petitions are considered and disposed of by this common order.
The petitions coming on for Admission, are heard for final disposal.
2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.6007/2011 are arraigned as Accused Nos.5 and 6 4 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.6437/2011 are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 4 in the same case.
3. The complaint was filed by the Police Inspector, Holalkere Town, on 25-01-2010 and registered as crime No.50/2010 under Section 4 read with Section 3 (1) (b)
(iii) of the Small Coins (Offences), Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short) read with Sections 420 and 251 and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC", for short) against the Accused. In the course of investigation, the Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are de-linked.
4. It is stated that when the Police Inspector was near Kottananjappa College, in Holalkere Town, on 25- 01-2010, at about 3:00 P.M., on suspicion, he noticed Accused No.1 carrying four bags and intercepted and inspected, it was found that the bags contained coins, which weighed about 201 kgs. and 400 grams. On further enquiry, it was found that the coins were being used for sale for higher rate, in that, the coins of 5 denomination of Rs.2/-, Re.1/-, 50 ps., and 25 ps. were mixed together and were being sold at Rs.250/- per kilogram and thereby on an average there would always be a profit made by such sale and it is in this background, on the voluntary statement of the Accused that the other Accused have been implicated and a charge sheet has been filed before the Magistrate. It is in that background that the present petitions are filed.
5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 3 of the Act prohibits melting or destruction of small coins and Section 4 provides for penalty in contravention of Section 3. It is pointed out that the prohibition is in respect of melting or destroying small coins and if a person has, in his possession, small coins substantially in excess of his reasonable requirement and leading to a presumption that it has been held for the purpose of melting or destroying, the rigour of the Section is attracted. 6
6. In the present case on hand, it is the categorical case of the prosecution that the petitioners were indulging in the sale of the coins at a premium. In that, for every kilogram of the said coin, the petitioners were receiving Rs.250/- from selling coins. The learned counsel would thus submit that if the rigour of Section 3 of the Act is not attracted on the say of the prosecution, as to the alleged offences committed by the petitioners, the invokation of the provisions of the IPC, is also irrelevant and inexplicable. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was fraud or cheating involved in invoking Section 420 nor it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners are found in possession of mutilated or altered coins, in which event, none of the provisions which are invoked are attracted, in the circumstances as alleged by the prosecution.
7. Though the learned Government Pleader would make a weak attempt to substantiate and justify the action of the prosecution, in the circumstances as 7 aforesaid, if the complaint and the charge sheet do not contain the basic foundation for allegations inviting Section 3 of the Act, the other provision cited, is not relevant and would be insignificant.
8. Incidentally, the petitioners have also obtained a clarification from the Reserve Bank of India that no licence is required for carrying small coins in any quantity and this is one other ground on which the prosecution had sought to frame the Accused. In that, it was alleged that the petitioners were found carrying coins without any valid licence. There is no requirement of any licence.
In the result, the petitions are allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.318/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Holalkere, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*