IN THE HIGH couar OF KARNATA§Q5ef
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAQF *
DATED THIS THE 20"'I-'c§A*f«QFAf§éiI;:2®9 .T. &x
HON' BLE MR. 3us14ic:jEfH. N;.V'NAGAAM%v€)AH}§§!*J"E)15;S
CRIMINAL EE'1,xIslQ'i"_§"F>EE~«'f'-E0..N Nix; 2§..:.Jgg0§
BETWEEN:
STATE 0F§--.i<A§<'N:fi\"T1S£Kfi{;_B§k Vk
SUB~INSPECTt§'R«..QF"-EQLICE, %
BHA3'_KALVRhiR5L « :PETIT£ONER
(3#'spJ.é;H;kksémgzeaimax, Hccap)
Ami ~
QOPAL sA"NA9THI PATAGAR (A-'70)
. 'JSGED ABOUT ;'3'%***'fEARS,
% R/Q QC'-LIKATI, CJNIKERI, $19.51,
A _ Ar Paasami; NO:265/17 D MAIN,
. " --.3R°''BL€J_CK}'VRAMJINAGAR,
' ._aANr;A;.,oRe AND omens. :RESPONDENT
(B'{j__SRI. BHAKTHAVACHALA, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILEIE U/$.39? RAM 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2007 PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & IBMFC, BHATKAL IN C.C.
N0.1464/2065.
THIS PETITXON COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
SAY, THE COURT MADE Ti'-iE FOLLOWING:
Qémx
ORDER
The prosecution after investigation. .che:rd.e-sh’eet
In c.c. i\io.1464/05 against accusedjforaihe-.o’rrgn§;es
punishable under Secs. 1r-i3. 14’7,_:i’48, ériiifai
with 5.149 IPC as early :.Vi3eto§reVVthe Tris!
Court, the prosecu’ti.§it. ovnewitnessvvvas PW-1 on
12.09.06 andfurther?v:iii.i_itness§es*”ovndiiiferent dates as PW-
2 to PW«0;’V ‘§he’reei’ter,” the Triai Court
to perrnit fQfi”rth§r~..g.nvestigation under 5.173(3) of
Cr.i?_.C.._ granted by the Triai Court vide
order “dated Pursuant to the order dated
,,fi§.’Ci-‘i=.07, issued a notice to the accused under
‘A for interrogation. Aggrieved by this notice,
._ “-0’;-get”ac;otised”‘flied an application before the Trial Court to
‘}’*ece«ii. the administrative order dated 04.04.07. After
* aiieairirig arguments on both the side, the Triai Court passed
‘the impugned order recalling the administrative order
dated 04.04.07’. Hence, this revision petition by the
prosecution.
:7’*W”‘
2. It is not in dispute that the jurisdicti:onii«Ep_tp.olice
during the course of investigation, recordedjth’e_
of the accused and filed cha.r.ge–.sheet””b’etojre'”‘th_eV ‘v5″:ri’ai»
Court. Now, under the guise of’i«ad:i’fninVist’rative” of-de’r..dTa.ted
04.04.03»: the 1.0. issued'{emoticonatihaetiS .i«so»<;r§P.c. to
the accused again to..record«–:t.h'Leir"stetetfientsgiThis Court,
in 'BALAJI Vs. smteotxAieiixt;gx.t%%A reported in ILR zoos
KAR 3597 .h.eidv.,that;Wthe1r:;e re-investigation
of the ~…Cri.rniTneiVV<Vifitocedure Code. The
in_i_svsuing a notice under 5.160
Cr.P.C. again to iivntertoc_V:vate’:-andegirecord the statements of
accused who wetes..’_4.Vairea’dj[ and whose
statements areifecorded.’ issiiinoeitmissibie under iaw. I find
no just’ifiAaa’oie’gt-ot.i_nd “interfere with the impugned order.
I-$:ccoVrdingiy,.VAthe oet’it’i:on{:=’iVs.. hereby dismissed.
Sd/4%
Iudgé
