Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri Kumar Bin Anjanappa on 5 December, 2012
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.160 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY VIJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP)
AND:
1. SRI KUMAR BIN ANJANAPPA
AGED 20 YEARS
C/O SMT MUNIYELLAMMA
COM PILARAPPA
13 MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 40.
2. SRI R RAJU BIN BASAVAGOUDA
AGE: 40 YEARS
96:27, K B NAGAR
BANGALORE CITY. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: B J KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 30.7.2007 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDL. C.M.M.,
BANGALORE, AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO HOLD THE
TRIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The State has filed the revision petition on 4.2.2008 challenging the order dated 30.7.2007 made in C.C.No.5186/2003 on the file of 4th ACMM, Bangalore City, closing the case under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C.
2. In spite of taking sufficient time, the revision petitioner-State is unable to get the notice served on respondent No.2.
3. A case was registered in the year 2001 against two Autorickshaw drivers alleging that they were driving the Autorickshaw using kerosene. One Raju, who is the driver of Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-03-2380 was arrested and ACMM, Bangalore, remanded him to judicial custody till 18.8.2001. Thereafter, he was released on bail subject to conditions. The Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against both the accused, viz. Raju and Kumar (showing him as absconding) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Summons / NBW / notice to surety were issued, but the Police could not execute/serve. Therefore, by an order dated 3 30.7.2007, the learned Magistrate closed the case under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C.
4. The contention of the State is that the trial Court erred in closing the case under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. though warrant procedure was applicable.
5. The offence alleged against the accused was committed on 11.5.2001. Even in this case, the State is unable to get the notice served on accused No.2 in the criminal case. Keeping in view that the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was committed on 11.5.2001, and Police could not execute NBW on them, no purpose will be served by granting any more time to take further steps.
6. For the reasons stated supra, the revision petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE KM