Karnataka High Court
Vinayakumar Alias Vinay vs State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 100354 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100354 OF 2022 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. VINAYAKUMAR ALIAS VINAY
S/O. RAVALU SHET
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O. SABAGERI ONI
NEAR SANKALPA HOTEL
ADJACENT TO NATIONAL
HIGH WAY, YELLAPUR, TQ. YELLAPUR
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581359
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
VN ADUR POLICE STATION,
BADIGER HANAGAL CIRCLE
DIST. HAVERI-581101
Digitally signed by V
N BADIGER REPRESENTED THROUGH STATE
Location: DHARWAD
Date: 2022.03.25 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
11:40:19 +0530
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH-580011
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
CRL.P No. 100354 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 11.06.2021
PURSUANT TO COMPLAINT DATED 20.03.2021 LODGED BY P.S.I.
ADUR POLICE STATION AND FIR DATED 20.03.2021 REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.0037/2021 OF ADUR POLICE STATION
FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDE SECTIONS 5, 6 OF EXPLOSIVE
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 AND SECTION 9B (1) (a) (b) EXPLOSIVE
ACT 1884 AND SECTION 192 A (1) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE
ACT, 1964 PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE HAVERI IN SC NO.16/2022 IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Charge sheet is filed against the accused alleging that accused Nos. 1 and 2 without prior permission from the competent authority was preparing to use explosive which could endanger human life and it is also alleged that the petitioner-accused No.3 had supplied the said explosive to the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the charge sheet and took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Section -3- CRL.P No. 100354 of 2022 9B(1)(a)(b) of the Explosive Substance Act, 1964. Taking exception to the same, the accused No.3 is before this court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any corroborative material the filing of charge sheet against the petitioner, only on the statement of the co-accused is impermissible. Hence, he submits that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is untenable.
3. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that petitioner having supplied explosive substance to the accused Nos.1 and 2 has committed aforesaid offences alleged against him and the police have rightly filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and the same cannot be faulted with.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
-4-CRL.P No. 100354 of 2022
5. Initially FIR was registered against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and also Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1884. The police after investigation arraigned the accused No.3 in the charge sheet alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under section 6 of the explosive substances Act, 1908 on the basis of the statement made by the co- accused alleging that explosive substances were supplied by the accused No. 3.
6. Section 114 Illustration (b) of Indian Evidence Act specifies that the statement of an accomplice or co- accused is unworthy of credit unless it is corroborated in material particulars. In the present case, there are no corroborative material so as to substantiate the allegation that the accused No. 3 in fact had supplied explosive substances to the accused Nos.1 and 2 and in the absence of any corroborative material, the statement of co-accused unworthy of credit resultantly the charge sheet filed against the Petitioner solely on -5- CRL.P No. 100354 of 2022 the basis of statement of co-accused is not permissible. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in SC.No.16/2022 pending before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri insofar it relates to Petitioner- Accused No.3 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-