Karnataka High Court
N.K. Neelakanta vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.486/2013 C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.162/2013
CRL.RP.No.486/2013
BETWEEN:
1. N K NEELAKANTA
S/O LATE K S MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O D.NO.776, I CROSS
1ST MAIN ROAD
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 086
2. VINODA KUMAR
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
3. P LOHITH
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
PETR. NO.2 & 3 ARE
R/O D.NO.1585-A
26TH CROSS, 30TH MAIN ROAD
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BAGNALORE - 560070
4. B M MAHESH
S/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2
R/O COTTONPET
BANGALORE - 560 053. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.M GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR SRI HANUMANTHARAYA C H,
ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397
R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 22.02.2013 IN S.C.NO.163/2010 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I,
BANGALORE & DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS FROM THE
OFFENCE OF 364A IPC & ALSO TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE
COURT OF I A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
CRL.RP.No.162/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI G MADHUSUDHAN
S/O H GOPAL KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
NO.19/19, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS
BAPUJI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040. ... PETITIONER
(BY DR. R RAMACHANDRAN, ADV.)
3
AND:
STATE BY CID POLICE
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397
R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 05.12.2012 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK
SESSIONS COURT-I, BANGALORE ON IA FILED BY THE
PETITIONER U/S 227 CR.P.C. IN S.C.NO.163/2010 & ETC.
THESE REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners were arrayed as accused 2 to 6 in C.C.No.2904/2001, registered for offences punishable under sections 342, 365, 384, 448, 427 & 506 r/w 149 IPC. The learned Magistrate framed charges for aforestated offences. After examination of PW1 in examination-in-chief, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor made an application to learned Magistrate, inter alia contending that prosecution has made out an offence under section 364A IPC, which is triable by the court of sessions and sought for committal of case to jurisdictional Sessions Court. The learned Magistrate has 4 committed the case to the Court of Sessions by invoking the provisions of section 323 Cr.P.C., which reads thus:-
"323. Procedure when, after Commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds case should be committed.- If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained 7[and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made]."
2. After committal of case, learned Sessions Judge should have proceeded with the case under Chapter XVIII Cr.P.C., which commences from section 225 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge on examination of investigation records should have considered whether there are grounds to presume that accused have committed offences alleged against them. This position of law is clear from the provisions of section 323 Cr.P.C., extracted supra. Instead, 5 learned Sessions Judge framed charge for an offence punishable under section 364A IPC as an additional charge. In other words, learned Sessions Judge did not consider the investigation records in terms of sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, learned Sessions Judge has held:- "so far as other offences are concerned, the I-ACMM, Bangalore, has framed charges the same has not been challenged by the accused".
The procedure adopted by learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the provisions of section 323 Cr.P.C., so also under the provisions of Chapter XVIII Cr.P.C. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to material available to proceed against accused under section 364A IPC, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order.
3. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The revision petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to learned Sessions Judge for reconsideration in the light of observations made 6 herein and in accordance with law. The other contentions urged herein are kept open. The learned Sessions Judge shall complete this exercise under section 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., within a period of four months from today. The learned Sessions Judge shall hear the parties as contemplated under sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN