Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs M V Rudrappa on 9 February, 2023
-1-
CRL.RP No. 346 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 347 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 346 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 347 OF 2018
IN CRL.RP.346/2018:
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY COD POLICE,
BY MALLESHWARAM P.S.
BANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PRAJWALA M.P. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND:
M.V. RUDRAPPA
S/O LATE M.V.VEERABADRAPPA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
signed by NO.596, 2ND FLOOR, 26TH CROSS,
SUMA
18TH MAIN ROAD,
Location:
HIGH POORNAPRAGNA NAGAR,
COURT OF UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 061.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2017 IN
SPL.C.C.NO.417/2016 BY PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION UNDER
SECTION 239 READ WITH 227 OF CR.PC OF RESPONDENT-A13,
DATED 20.11.2017, ANNEXURE-A AND DISCHARGED OF THE
CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 346 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 347 of 2018
IN CRL.RP.347/2018:
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALLESHWARAM P.S.
BANGALORE
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PRAJWALA M.P. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND:
K.S. RANGANATH
S/O SHIVAPPA,
NO.442/B, NAMANNA APARTMENT,
IDEAL HOME,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AMITH NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ALLOWING THE APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 239 READ WITH 227 OF CR.P.C. OF RESPONDENT -
A14 IN SPL.C.C.NO.417/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL (KCOCA) COURT, BENGALURU DATED
20.11.2017 ANNEXURE-A AND DISCHARGED OF THE CHARGES
LEVELED AGAINST HIM
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.RP No. 346 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 347 of 2018
ORDER
The State has filed these revision petitions challenging the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in Spl.C.C.No.417/2016 by which, the accused Nos.13 and 14 were discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 411 and 109 of IPC and Sections 115 and 23 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
2. The case of the prosecution in so far as it relates to accused Nos.13 and 14 (respondents herein) are that the daughter of accused No.13 had taken up the examination of II PUC held during March, 2016. The accused No.13 had collected question papers of the examination from accused No.11 and in turn accused No.13 had passed on the question paper to accused No.14, whose son was also taking up the examination. The accused No.11 was therefore, the one who gave question papers to accused No.13 and in turn accused No.13 gave it to accused No.14. It was based upon this, the accused Nos.13 and 14 were charged for the offences mentioned above. The accused Nos.13 and 14 filed an application under Section 239 read with Section 227 of Cr.P.C. -4- CRL.RP No. 346 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 347 of 2018 to discharge them from the said offences contending that they had no role to play in the leakage of the question papers and that they ought to have been cited as witnesses, just the way CW.13 to CW.16, CW.35, CW.36, CW.48 and CW.49 were shown in the charge-sheet. The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged, discharged the accused Nos.13 and 14 on the ground that there was no role played by them in leaking the question papers and that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against them.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed these revision petitions.
4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court had conducted a mini trial at the stage of considering an application for discharge. He submitted that accused Nos.13 and 14 had indeed received the question papers from accused No.11 and therefore, they were co- conspirators and since it was stated that they had paid money to the accused No.11, the offences under Sections 457, 380, 201 of IPC read with Section 115 and 23 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 were made out. He therefore submitted -5- CRL.RP No. 346 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 347 of 2018 that the Trial Court pre-decided the case against the accused Nos.13 and 14.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused Nos.13 and 14 submitted that the accused Nos.13 and 14 were not conspirators as claimed by the prosecution, as admittedly they were not involved in the leakage of the question papers, but the prosecution case was that accused No.11 had handed over the question papers to accused Nos.13 and 14. They also contended that the prosecution did not claim that accused Nos.13 and 14 had further leaked the question papers for any unlawful gain. They also contended that the accused No.11, who was the link between the accused Nos.1 to 10 and accused Nos.13 and 14 had challenged the cognizance taken against him in W.P.No.33974/2018 and this Court in terms of an order dated 13.12.2019, set aside the order dated 10.05.2018 taking cognizance against the accused No.11 and discharged him of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 119, 411 of IPC in Spl.C.C.No.417/2016. The learned counsel therefore, contended that when the accused No.11 was discharged, then there is no evidence to establish the complicity of the accused Nos.13 and 14. Learned counsel further submitted that this judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was upheld by -6- CRL.RP No. 346 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 347 of 2018 the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No.1870/2021 and therefore, the question of proceeding against the accused Nos.13 and 14 does not serve any purpose.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State did not dispute the fact that the accused No.11 is discharged and therefore, there is no incriminating evidence linking the accused Nos.13 and 14 with accused Nos.1 to 10.
7. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Trial Court discharging the accused No.13 and 14 does not call for interference by this Court in a revision petition as the main accused namely, accused No.11 from whom the accused Nos.13 and 14 had allegedly received the question papers, was discharged from the offences.
Hence, these revision petitions lack merit and are dismissed. However, it is open for the prosecution to cite them as witnesses in accordance with law. The power of the Trial Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR