-1-
!N THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BAEGALORE
BATED TH¥S THE 13*" E>AY o:= JUNE, 2008
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTiCE SUBHASH BABE
QRJMINAL, REv:sm PET;:1oI_\_1 :~sc>.;o5;2@7 E%:j f
BETWEEN:
'E,
E ;§é_@§
S.N.Shi\:araju,
S/0 Ningegowda,
@ Banegcwda,
aged about 26 years.
. H.Har:umaiah.
S/o Hanumegowda.
Aged about 48 years.
Putiaswamy,
Sic Ningegowda,
A926 about 36 y::esa:1s3.4.__ ' '
S.M.Shivataj.u,..E, :'.,:A_ .
Sic Manchgagowda; _ '1,
Aged 24 years.-. ' . "
Shivaiingegowda, * V
Ningegowda,
_ Aged aiagmt 35 year$.A. V'
EAR are :?%%e=:;d;iEé§ gt
8ab':;Vahaha'iii4 vzgfagg, 1- I
i%na<idur__'¥fa£uK45?'i
A '¢fKarnataka by
:<;M.x:goesdiPoaice.
FETITIONEFES
E .T{Ey SrE,D.R.Sundaresh, Adv.)
..... RESPGNBENT
{By Srmonnappa. ¥~if3GP)
V -2--
This €3ri.F2P is filed U£S,39?. 402 & 482 of C::;P.C_ praying ta set
aside the order of cenviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.882i2OG1
on the fiie of the Aerial. JMFQ, Maddur §ated 15.10.2004 am confirmed
in Crl,A.No.81220G4 on tixe fiie of the Addi. S...i., Mandya defied
'12.1K2GO?.
This revision petition coming on for final hearing thi_$"€ia;4:'_~€?§:fé?' _
Court made the foiiowfng: V
This revision is against the.jVudgr:2e'fi:-.£;f--Cbnyietbié 'andafrder of
sentence in C.riV"th5t;'.'th'§§::_"_,§r;§:;used have iltegaily stocked the
5E€§L3V§>%' i¥1t?1§%i%:£f'?i0L¥Se. PW3 a£c-ng with other officéais went
t"t§'_:é','?1'<:1.V:_.'?V.L~*',:e ficgzused No.1 :0 discharge their official duty. The
accus7é:§_ 'f§_rmi"rs§'.an VV.";;:v:*:§'av.rfui amernbiy with a common abject of
V"v1. fi?s;:er:tedfine q%io§.éi'SAfrcm making search. restrained 9W1 and ether
' U " xfrpm éiisciharaing their functions. and they used fiéthy Eanguage,
€53-..§asE:§.*'of this, a comglaént was filed by PW3. Based on which. an
"§ n'va$t§Vg¢?§£ion was made ané charge sheet was filed'
4, Yhe prosecution examined PW? to PW11 and aiso marked the
Eiecuments Exs.f-31 to P51
("-
5. PW? is the independent witnees. He hae turned hostiie and
has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW2 is one ofgihe
officials who went a¥ong with PW3. In his cross examEnaticn*-3£=':i'te:3 ~ x
that. there were about 8 to 10 persons presented in the fife K
accused and has sated that. he cannot :i<ie'?1tifEed ".:t'he_:iVV:fc§.§'r
persens. PW3 is the complainant. in the crises 7'.e_xéTm§eeF1i}< I$::. Hm,
stated that, no independent person waS:--\§{E£hV_the?fi' e;<ce9£»'Q§fEe§:e'iswwarid
he aiso assem that. Baélegowde wasVAgreV$en{"-am .eaw:.hEn::Eand a
suggestion is made to him that. éfeasie back, but the
suggestion is deraied. He'«h§s siatee ii}at;' .£f2e_ iook place on
28.3.2031
at about Arne' complaint on that day itseif and ?'.§'eVV4§e?ent to the office at 16.50 am. and on ae§:aeu'ntV of work. he could net filed a
compteint orythat eég; e}:s:>., 29.3.2901, he ceuid not fiiee the
c::§%s%p§a;int.v-‘:e_e%’s was ire}éived’Vin the indent week and thereafter an
30..3:2’f.’I8;§ hefi:§e§_.’:{e4t:=e:m*;j§eir:’t. PW4, F’-‘W5, PW6 and PW? have turned
e…__;V–;gsti£e. ?=’\.flf8éhasA ;ei:’e.§eted that. he had aiso gone along with PW3.
VEexc..e;;.tfiP\iV2. PW3. W314 and PW8. no other Eradependent
suprported the prosecution case. There is no iueiifiabie
. for the deiay in fiiing the compéaint. PW3 has stated that, en
a»ce§unt of the pressure <3-f werk, he seuéd not ffied a compiairzt. This
Viéseif shows rzegiigence it: take action against the crime. Registraéion of
-4-
Crime has to be as eariy as possible, otherwise the very pufpose cf
investigation gets affected.
3′. in this case. exeianation given by PW3 is totaiiy ur;§2:~si_gfi <'j it A'
is not acceptable, He cannot deiay én filing of the co;:;p»5é'i£§t. ¥i¥efe;;,J'
because he had other ofiiciai work and thevWéa§t"i:3._v\€a%£f:ic?;
explained. it appeam that. he had no importaf%::__e 'is:_A.regiéfg;{ t?:e 'cr'ir;§é~.:v"
and set the criminal Eaw into mention.
8. Witnesses except sayirggjhat :%iéy”.?§Iagc§ §c;}e t§’>& ihé héguse of
the accused, there is no recovery””aV§’:.:i’ provisions
of Excise Act is if::é ex:idence that, the day
on which the he ggzde was Uaadi festivai. a
very émpcrtant ;eii§E’£:ué fe:;_f§§éfiV.§f1in?:fi:s. in normai circumstances. at
the time of Ligadi fésti§?a§~…ény ‘£aiVéfir search in the house of Hindu.
w§fi§dv.A be»-i,j§e:;’t:A’iec§v%. for :’*é¥ig’E’i<§s;.:is reason. Except the atiegatiorz <3?
prever§tirag:'_t%:a '<:e%4'£';'<:%..a4'£1::..Tffri;:.;:'n searching. there is he ether aélegation. nor
:7Y,.,,_<_:f.a,Ve:'e £s.ar;§?i§:ingéf$飧}éE:; nor the ofiiciais had taken paiice heip or had
'_ ..f§.!§eg',;; cs:f§;;!a ii'r:f; t:;ef¢re making search. The evidence is hardiy
2.”s%£fti{éi§3r:fV{¢”a:¢m;§ct the accuaed. Neither the independent wiinesses rm!
{wave sugspctted the charge aiieged against the accused.
‘ Courts have cemméttad arm: in net preving the case with
evidence. #31 my opinion, the Trig! Court was net justified in
convicting the accused.
9. fiscsordingiy, this revision is aiiowed. The order of conviction
and sentence in C.CwNo.862120£)’E is set aside, Consequentiyfihe.
juégment in apmai in Criminai Appeed No,81i2004 is also set ”
The amount of fine deposited is directed is be refufifiggv ‘fig the Z ”
accused.