Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sec 319 in Sri Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2021Matching Fragments
VIII - Writ Petition No. 16088/2021 filed by accused No.16 -
Chandrashekar Indi Arguments advanced by Dr. Ashwani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner
41. Dr. Ashwani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-accused No.16 contended that the impugned order dated 6.9.2019 passed by the State Government is manifestly arbitrary and an abuse of process of law since it is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. He would further contend that the impugned order passed by the State Government is an mala- fide exercise of powers which is politically motivated and cannot be sustained. The entrustment of the matter to the 2nd respondent- Agency under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation by the State Government is in derogation and utter disregard to the order dated 1.3.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.58183- 184/2017 and confirmed by the judgment dated 22.7.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) Nos.5760-61/2019 and therefore, the same being illegal and void is liable to be quashed. He would further contend that accused No.16 was not a party to the original FIR filed in Crime No.135/2016 and he has been falsely implicated in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the State Government and as such, the further investigation conducted by the CBI-2nd respondent is without any basis and cannot be sustained. He would further contend that in paragraph-3 of the Government Order dated 6.9.2019, neither any reason for handing over further investigation to the 2nd respondent - CBI nor any of its right to disprove the investigation is mentioned which was accepted by the learned Single Judge of this Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The State Government has no independent authority to pass any order for re-investigation as the same is impermissible since the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the legal representatives of the deceased had been rejected. The provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised by the 2nd respondent-a new agency without the consent of the Court. When the new Government assumed the Office on 26.7.2019 and on a representation made by the kith and kin of the deceased to the then Hon'ble Chief Minister on 6th August, 2019, the impugned order has been passed on 6.9.2019 which clearly depicts that it is politically motivated. Inspite of the opinion of the Commissioner of Police that there is no reason for entrusting the matter to the CBI, the State Government has proceeded to pass an unreasonable order in violation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
c) Chandra Babu Alia Moses -vs- State through Inspector of Police and Others reported in (2015)8 SCC 774 - paragraph-38.
IX - Writ Petition No.15828/2021 filed by accused No.15 - Vinay Kulkarni Arguments advanced by Sri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Girish Ganapathrao Nilegar, Advocate for the petitioner
46. Sri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel for accused No.15 contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the State Government is manifestly arbitrary, abuse of process of law and cannot be sustained since the impugned order entrusting the matter to CBI for further investigation is impermissible. He would further contend that the incident of murder occurred on 15.6.2016, trial commenced on 12.7.2017 and FIR was filed on 9.9.2016 that too after completion of recording of evidence of 63 witnesses, as well as the statement of the accused persons under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and at that stage, the impugned order is passed without application of mind which cannot be sustained. He would further contend that on 26.8.2019, though an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the brother of the deceased seeking to array the petitioner and another as accused persons in S.C.No.50/2017, the same was dismissed by the trial Court which has reached finality. Hence, the impugned order passed by the State Government entrusting the matter to the 2nd respondent Agency under the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., for further investigation is derogatory and utter disregard to the judgment dated 1.3.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.58183-184/2017 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.7.2019 in SLP (Crl) Nos.5760-61/2019 when the same has reached finality and therefore, the State Government has no jurisdiction to hand over the case to CBI as it is contrary to the orders passed by this Court and Apex Court and on that ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
20) were found to have taken illegal gratification to scuttle the investigation. The State Government has accorded sanction to prosecute accused Nos.19 and 20 on 9.8.2021 as per Annexures-R6 and R7 to the statement of objections filed by the State. He further contended that under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., an application was filed by the complainants to implead accused No.19, the investigating officer in the case, who had subsequently conspired to dilute the case. Since at that time, as no evidence or material was placed before the Court against accused No.19, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no material for further investigation by the CBI and as such, the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was also rejected.
57. The learned Solicitor General of India further contended that powers can be exercised by the trial Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., is only when it appears from the evidence placed before the trial Court. In a fact situation, where the investigating officers, who collected the evidence, which is before the trial Court, are themselves found to be accused, subsequently, inter alia, for shielding the real offenders, ignoring the relevant evidence etc., the order of the competent court rejecting application under Section 319, cannot be pleaded as a bar against further investigation conducted by CBI as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh -vs- State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC