Karnataka High Court
Mr B Abdul Rahiman vs The State Through The Sub on 17 January, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4057 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Mr. B. Abdul Rahiman,
Aged 66 years,
Son of Ahmed Kunhi,
Residing at Nala,
Belthangady,
Belthangady Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District - 575 008. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
AND:
The State - Through the
Sub Inspector of Police,
Belthangady Police Station,
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader)
2
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner herein in Crime No.222/1989 of
Belthangady Police Station, which was earlier pending in
Spl.C.No.40/1996 and now pending in L.P.C.No.8/1998 on the
file of Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru against this petitioner for the offence
punishable under Sections clause 4 of Karnataka Essential
Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 read with 3 and 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The present petitioner was arraigned as accused no.2 and is before the court seeking the benefit of acquittal granted to other accused who were separately tried.
3. The background to the case is as follows:
Initially, a case was registered in Crime No.222/1989 in Belthangady Police Station on 12.12.1989 on the basis of a 3 complaint lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Belthangady, alleging that on 12.12.1989 at 8.30 pm., the complainant along with his staff and others proceeded in a jeep to Sarkari Gudde at Ankabalu of Mundaje village and it was noticed that the petitioner along with one other namely, Kasim were seen trying to run away on seeing the vehicle in which the complainant and others were present. But there were chased and apprehended and on further investigation, they found that there were 8 barrels and 12 plastic cans and other material containing petrol of a quantity of 200 litres each and the cans contained about 220 litres of kerosene oil and the same was seized along with a two wheeler under a panchnama. It was alleged that the accused had stocked kerosene and petrol illegally and therefore was seized from their possession since it was in violation of Section 4 of the Indian Petroleum Act, 1934 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the said offences. Thereafter, the case was split up against the petitioner 4 as he was not readily available and was consigned to Long Pending Case in case No.8/1998 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dakshina Kannada Mangaluru. The main case which was registered as Special Case No.7/1992 against accused no.1 Kasim was tried by the said court and after a full fledged inquiry, the accused therein was acquitted by a judgment dated 24.1.1997. It is on the footing that the very evidence that was tendered against Kasim in Special CC No.7/1992 would be tendered insofar as the present petitioner is concerned and since the exercise would be one in futility as the result is predictable and in view of the law laid down by this court as well as other courts that in such circumstances, it would be a waste of judicial time and effort for the courts to go through the motions when the purpose is futile, the learned Counsel seeks that the petitioner herein be given the benefit of the judgment rendered in Special CC 7/1992 and acquitted the accused.5
Reliance is placed on decisions in Mohammed Ilias vs. State of Karnataka, 2001(3) Kar.L.J 551 and Sunil Kumar vs. State of Delhi, 2000(1) Crimes 73(Delhi).
4. The learned Government Pleader does not seriously dispute this position. On verification, he would submit that there is no possibility of any fresh evidence being tendered against the petitioner and the prosecution would certainly rest its case on the very evidence that was tendered against accused no.1.
5. In that view of the matter and in the light of the law as laid down by this court, wherein this court has followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar's case supra, which judgment has referred to a large number of cases and held that the trial being an exercise in futility, it would be advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The present petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner, pending earlier in Special 6 Case No.40/1996 and then assigned L.P.C.No.8/1998 and now assigned Special Case No.14/2017, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is quashed. The petitioner being in custody ought to be set at liberty.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv