State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Nasrulla Haji Amin on 29 November, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Nasrulla Haji Amin on 29 November, 2010

Bench: K.Govindarajulu

; 1 : CrI.RP No.7/2007
C,-'wCr1.R.P' No.2362/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

Dated this the 29*? Day 0f November 
Before
THE HOKVBLE MRJUSTICE Fi;édVINDARA%fi§*;{ﬁx'  
Criminal Revision v:~5¢':j:ion§~¢.o'§°7 z20:3?*%.i#_'v«--%
C/{W CI'I.R.P.   

BETWEEN: '
State of Karnataka.        ...Petitioner
   '  {C.ic>.1fa.rV1i£>'1*1..:i&r3; both petitions)

A N D 

E\/I<3hamrr:eVd" Nasrpiliﬁ 'P-,«:1'ii:1
Haji IsmaiI,»._H3:.ji Amer:;r1, _
Businassmari Qf Natienai Colony;

 , 'Ix/£i:f€_:1s:i.5h§if5r in B'E:a:1__<:_ai Taiuka.
U .}v{,'LDis;i:i%fi<:t%; ~ ' '_ . . Respondent

(Common in both petitions) (83; 3:3: :ja§>jgniT%gnd Sﬁaik, Acivocate} _ Thr::Se criminai revisien petiiiens am filed under ._ " _'S3:€%s.::t:€{;::1 39? read with Section 481 sf the (Sade {sf _ _C?f'TifIii'f18.:E Pracedure by the SP?' for the State §:°ay:':1g 1:27:23': this §--§§:£b}e Cmzré 1:233; be pisased :3 3:3': asiﬁe '$26 <::~:"§€1** éaiﬁd ®8gQ8,2{iSé gassed bf; the 3.3., Fag: ?:*a<:i<; : 2 : Cr1.RP N0?/2007 Cf"? Cr1.R.P. N02362/2006 Courtﬁ, Karwar in S.C.N0.§1/2085 ._ and S.<';.Nc>.5€)/2005 respectivslyg 9 These criminal revision petiticms :':om,in.g fe:*;%"

final hearing this day, the Court made the f01E{:«wi::'g:.L:"' 1 ~ The orders of <:iischa1'ge:~..__:eCdfL*3_é€:1 Presiding Officer, Fast Track ﬁiin SC. Nos.50/2005 and 51/;2«--£iV§35A by the State in these F€ViSiOr1.§)€titiQ.}"1'S;» . if V

2. F2{t:ts_..""r1é§ié¥:«ss.é$;1¥j,f-._f0.r : consideration sf these reVisio1j=; pejti1:AiQf1_s dffé' as 'fggliiows :V The éisgcuseii _hé;$ "cQE_;:tended he was an accussd in C,C.»E\E§;o'.'V1€383/i'9'E7?$___§j:;«.the me of JMFC, Bhatka}. Case *__aga;in_s2. hir:'a. '"a::d accuged No.4 was spiit up and §e~gé~.a:é'"':%',~;;s¢§'is regisieitred in C.CgN<:>s.2618/1998. LaEe::,x ..é{;:;:i:§eé N0.2~Shaha:r1awaj Aii Abciui Hahn:

' '. C§oi1i&::;;, "'a€<:us6d N<:u3-Mahammsé Sadie; Ahammad

-..j.'.--BAgi;ba1';A>u K{}};'aSa}--' éﬁobiarﬁg and acgussd Nag?» 1% 1 : 3 : Cr1.RP No.7/2007 C/W CI'LR.P. N02362/2005 Mohammad Someom Sakkarade Sakkarade were committed} case was b N935/1999. Accused N031? 3 25$ ,x[#ye;_€ the case by judgment datecgi, pf'€f€I"I'€d any appeai. Wheréa:€"'the :;€rspv§>:1r'1':.é3rﬁ;AV1i1.v:%{:V§i:1:1se:<:1 ' was arrested on 2}.12;2084g"fé'ié§§zséé._ in Cf1';'§vE'£s<:. Case 349.172/2004. Later, £h%eT_'céu:.6:}1":;asg§:.zig:£1;ni:ted in SC.

N051 / 2005. accused in s.c.No.35;1'<.:§%;;9;5 ~:§:gdischarge. In spite of resistan~c;e .}§yféﬁééiI;§>r0§§$§e;i1:i«'0'rx--,..:}1§e said applicatien was a11og;g,«e;:1,_ by '1o8.08.2o05. With similar facts in the claim 0f the accused is aHC:v;ed.LA V"

"VE§§:Va§::3_ed High Ceurt Gmzernment Pleader s§i,:}.:%:':*«1é:svs« §f:j3 ﬁ1'vV:h€ pmcedura adapted by the Eearned Sess2;a:::1é;._Judge £8 net proper; uniess the accused is V' ".. =s;A:e€:u:f€<i', pmduced before thﬁ Court far framing charge §;:ﬁ"rec<_>rd1Z:1g eviéemée, BE sazzriei '$6 éischarged and, if 'aw/M : 4 : CFLRP No.7/200'?

C:/W' Cr1.R.P. N0.2362/2006 he is dischargeé he WEB try ':0 avoid trial. Se? pray for setting aside the discharge orders passed in eases. Whereas, the Eearned adveeate for submit that eviclerice being avai}5;a,}:f,Qe, it befere the Ceurig it being irregmarity.

4. In the ﬁght the e;t$eV'ee--~'eaiimissioﬁe,'Aihe paint that arise fer censideratidn_Vef'f}§is is as under:

'" 1;h¢e:' -.or<:%,ei5sv of discharge are 1 ju3j:'i'§ied'V'in ':'hese',reviSions?' 1:: 'a 'ee;Se:"~:::f SeVss_ﬁ"c;ﬁs'tria1, the IS? element is the presence efa the aeC1_.is'e_:;L thereafter framing of Charge re.Cm*ding of the evidence. Even before Vi;%{e'~.e11:»:{fge';.: if--_the accused is acquitted; ihere is me ee.:{e'ti:i*:j;j §<f2::if_ .§):*<t:eed.ure. This is net the scheme of the Cede iminal Preeedure. Se, the submissions ef the 'L-- '_3e_s;':g«ede High Gem": {}e2:emme:1: Pieade? is accepted;

Cr1.RP No.7'/200'?

C/w CYLRP. No.2362,!'2006 {fl submission of the advocate fer the accused/resggezifdeiavvt is rejected.

6. Revision petitiens are 2§.110WAet:2--, 'Qfii-€;'fT_$.V'Qf} discharge applications are _ set A'-aside. The: " ieaiﬁevd Sessions Judge, Fast Track Ci:s:;i*iwIL Kétf_W'éii"V§ isfclirecteci restore both the casee: in 515:' QVOOS and decide the cases in aceezfdaheeafter framing Jifagg K1113

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court