Karnataka High Court
Sri. Paramappa @ Paramanand S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5969
CRL.RP No. 200084 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200084 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PARAMAPPA @ PARAMANAND
S/O. SANGAPPA SANNATANGI
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
2. SRI.SABAPPA S/O KALLAPPA SANNATANGI
AGE :55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
3. SRI.SHANKREPPA S/O SANGAPPA SANNATANGI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
4. SRI.SANGAPPA S/O LAXMAN KALAGI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by 5. SRI.SHARANAPPA S/O KALLAPPA SANNATANGI
LUCYGRACE AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 6. SRI SOMAPPA S/O HONNAKERAPPA SANNATANGI
KARNATAKA
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
PETITIONERS ARE ALL
R/O. AGASBAL VILLAGE,
TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586203.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5969
CRL.RP No. 200084 of 2021
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BASAVANA BAGEWADI PS,
REP. BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI.
2. SRI. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O BASAVARAJAGOUDA
PATIL,
AGE: 21 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
R/O: AGASBAL TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURRAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1
BY Sri.S. V. PARADDU & SRI. P.S. PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE / SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
VIJAYAPUR IN SPECIAL CASE SC / ST NO.30/2018 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
341, 324, 326, 307, 427, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149
OF IPC, AND SECTION 3 (i) (r) (s), 2 (v), OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015, ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER Section 319 OF
CR.PC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5969
CRL.RP No. 200084 of 2021
ORDER
The order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court, Vijayapura in Special Case SC/ST.No.30/2018, issuing notice on application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is impugned, in this petition.
02. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 307, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 (i) (r) (s) and 2 (5) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015, against the petitioners and others. The police after conducting the investigation submitted the charge-sheet for the above said offences. However, the names of the petitioners were dropped from the charge-sheet.
03. After the evidence of PW.3, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to arraign the petitioners as additional accused, stating that, the evidence of PW.3 discloses the involvement of the petitioners in the crime.
04. The learned Sessions Judge, issued notice on the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same this petition is filed.
05. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the learned Sessions Judge, before issuing notice on application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was required to form an opinion as to whether there is a strong and cogent evidence available so as to prosecute the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. However, the learned Sessions Judge -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5969 CRL.RP No. 200084 of 2021 without forming an opinion to that effect, has issued the impugned notice and the same is not sustainable in law. In support he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92.
06. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submits that, the learned Sessions Judge, has issued notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why should not be arraigned them as additional accused and for that purpose there is no requirement to form an opinion as to whether there is any strong and cogent evidence to proceed against the petitioners herein. Hence, impugned notice issued by the learned Sessions Judge, does not warrant any interference.
07. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
08. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) at Para No.105 and 106 has held as under :-
"105. Power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and oly in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the magistrate or the sessions judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5969 CRL.RP No. 200084 of 2021 from the evidence laid before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence laid before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much strong evidence that near probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
(emphasis supplied)"
09. A reading of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. indicates that, the notice cannot be issued in a causal or caviler manner unless if there is any strong and cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution, and there is a prima-facie case to proceed against the person to be arraigned as an additional accused. However, in the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge, without forming an opinion as to whether a strong and cogent evidence is available to proceed against the accused persons, has issued the notice and the same is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I pass the following;
-6-NC: 2023:KHC-K:5969 CRL.RP No. 200084 of 2021 ORDER I. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
II. The impugned order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Vijayapur, in Special Case SC/ST No.30/2018, on application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., is hereby set-aside.
III. The liberty is reserved with the learned Sessions Judge, to re-consider the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and after perusing the evidence on record, form an opinion as to whether there is a strong and cogent evidence available to summon the petitioners to arraign them as additional accused and thereafter, passed an appropriate order in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41