Karnataka High Court
Mahaveer S/O. Dasharatha Kamble vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11762/2013
BETWEEN:
1. MAHAVEER
S/O. DASHARATHA KAMBLE
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE
WORKING AS CHC AT DSB SECTION
SP OFFICE, KARWAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
2. PRAVEEN
S/O. SHANTARAM REVANDIKAR
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE
WORKING AS CPC IN DCRB KARWAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA .
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI : M KUSUMAKAR & SMT. RAJASHREE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SPECIAL POLICE STATION
KARWAR,
R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HIGH COURT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.408/2010 (CRIME NO.27/2010) PENDING
BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC II-COURT,
KARWAR.
I.A. NO.2/2014 IS FILED FOR GRANT OF STAY.
THIS PETITION A/W. I.A. COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
- State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.408/2010, pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C. II Court, Karwar, and also to set aside the 3 order passed by learned Sessions Judge dated 13.09.2013 in Crl.R.P. No.116/2013.
3. The learned counsel for petitioners strenuously argued before this Court that on 07.05.2010 after receiving credible information that a white Maruthi Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-21/658 is moving towards Ankola from Goa transporting illicit liquor, the Police Inspector Sri C.E. Thimmayya, attached to Sub-Police Station, Udupi, who was in-charge of Karwar Division has instructed his staff to intercept the said vehicle and seize the articles, if any. Accordingly, the Head Constables and Constables had been to the particular spot in order to intercept the said vehicle and found the said vehicle and they have also seized some 16 polythene bags containing 'Honey Guide Brandy' worth Rs.1,62,500/-.
4
4. The learned counsel for petitioners has tried to convince this Court that the Police Officer below the rank of P.S.I. has no authority to seize the articles and to file the charge sheet in the Court of law. This particular aspect has been challenged before the trial Court seeking discharge of the accused persons, but the trial Court had refused to discharge the accused persons. Against the said order, the accused persons had filed revision petition before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court had also rejected the application as such they are before this Court. The observation made by trial Court while refusing to discharge the petitioners
- accused persons is that instead of curbing the illegal activities of culprits the petitioners being police personnel's have supported them. Therefore, their act does not come under the provision under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) in order to get the 5 shelter under the said provision. Therefore, on that ground Court has rejected their application. The Sessions Court also did not interfere with the order in this regard. Looking to the above said circumstances, when the matter has already been before the Court for trial, it appears that the charges have already been framed against the accused persons.
5. Secondly, the grounds urged by petitioners herein are that the seizure conducted by police officers is not valid and they have no jurisdiction or power to conduct seizure of the liquor or the vehicle. In my opinion, all these grounds have to be thrashed out during the course of trial. The materials placed before the Court are sufficient only to proceed against the accused persons and the Court has framed charges and the entire grounds urged before the Court shall be thrashed out on taking the evidence. Even at the time 6 of passing the judgment if the Court is of the opinion that the act of accused persons or petitioners falls within the purview of their official duty and then also the Court can pass appropriate orders with regard to the jurisdiction of police officers in seizing the articles.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the charge sheet has been filed by competent authority i.e., the Police Inspector and that only on his direction and instructions the other officials have conducted the seizure.
7. The fact that has to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial is whether the police officials who have conducted the seizure have absolutely no jurisdiction. Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Magistrate or the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioners are at liberty to thrash out these 7 materials during the course of full dressed trial. With these observations, petition is disposed of.
The trial Court is directed to make all its endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
In view of disposal of main petition, I.A. No.2/2014 for grant of stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2014 is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/