IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY,_\:25O/9i' -
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIoE J;I:°I'.1[I't[)i'eel2i!&-1{:I'1\./ii"
CRIMINAL REVISION RE-TITIO%\*. No.2
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka,
By the Su'o--Inspector ' '
ofRoIIce,Koppa1,f - ...PETITIONER
{By Sri P.I-I it '
AND:
M.TippariI1a; « V _ "
S / o. M.HanU_II'Ianthappa," _
Aged about 3S=years,.'-- "
Occ: E-jriveer, " A. _
- R1/o. ._1_t"3gi,\..{§amp1i. " ..... I . RESPONDENT
._ Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
r/w; {I01 of C'i'«;P.C. by the SP? for the petitiOner/ State praying
V to set" aside" the order passed by the SI)". Koppai dated
- I2.2oO7_I?n Cr1.A.NO.17O/2007.
it This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court
the following:
owe
ORDER
This revision is directed against the t..Q.1ld.eir*i:i’dated
7.12.2007 passed in Crl.A.No.130/2007 on theiile of..se$si§nsi”
Judge, Koppal, dismissing the appea’1″as”belated.;.« _ V
2. This petition is not yet ii’1\ioti_oe
admission was issued to the responden’t–accus’e_d,’izVh–i.(:h–‘notice. ‘
is also not yet served by the State agency “even though this
revision is by the State. ‘*–.l5e_spite %ifevpe’atedi’time granted by this
court to ensure the notieeis served respondent, the
jurisdictional l«..po]iioe_’. ireipiorted that due to
unavailability respondent in the village where he resides,
they couldinot seir’veiit’he’ niotioe. This matter is listed today on
boardéipiforrr orders “toeonsider whether further opportunity could
beegiventiito. t.he’–..appellant to get the notice served.
“Whether any worth purpose would be served by
ofsorrie time has to be considered. Hence, I have heard
a._ith_ie”1–e’arned Government Pleader Sri P.H.Gotkhindi for the
-petitioner. It is noticed that the respondent was arraigned for
fir
the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A)_ of IPC
and was put to trial in C.C.No.218/ 2006. The le_ar.n:e«d”]frial
Judge considered the prosecution evidence
of the said offence. But noticing thecircuinstaricesl”in”which » _
real incident occurred, the learned ‘ifrial_”Judg6.t0ol§:’ decifisidnjto
show lenient View and grantedilbenefitll under 3 .85 S’
the Probation of Offender’s Act.
4. The State fe..e1,i’ng the inadequate
punishment to”the.irespond_e’rit iinxrjolixediiiprovisions of Section
377 of Cr.P.l’}. t:jc_iichallen4ge:l.’iit:in”~CrlfAll\Io.170/2007 before the
learned .4.” ii
appeal. Was filed belatedly. The office
,..r,:_ompu*te;;l-etheppdelairias”I3l2 days. Seeking condonation of delay,
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported
byilthe of the jurisdictional District Magistrate was
‘filed. In said Affidavit, he averred as follows: ,
ac?”
if ‘li”*–“.. i– F7}? 01:53 «x:”§’zr’c=’;::3-§’&§03p .«~.”:’5′{‘i[§r:5Ti I”I”e,3’zfcx°L’»
F ‘F
i -‘ ft 3 ‘ ‘\ E l ‘3 “:3 ‘ .3” U6-{-
~ :66» em am; as eg, 53 are .51: ,a2.,’L’/’Q 3.2 _/~tf~\_3r.JT’.(L;r;–*»-si rs’; Fa rm rm
_ W, .,
‘s 6
Ii
1
i i’ ii ” J V 1 E «.5 , ” 3
‘z-C§f”¥(§fj,’;x_..g’;g;~q €,Z:-;aj–\.§f.A.-’13, @’6d,.3,¢f~7;’C;:;_e;::};j)¢€_j5>Lé}
fit’
considering the explanation offered to condone the delay as the
question involved was relating to inadequacy ofv~._se_ntence
passed against the respondent.
9. Even in this revision the iE3t’ate’:i has*..failed_ [go ‘
satisfactorily explain the delay. thgati. the
Commissioner avers is that he ihiaidgone to~l3aIi–galore attend
training and came ,. Ministeieg meeting.
Therefore, he kept himself the visit of Chief
Minister. Thereafter, training for two
months and’ ‘file the appeal. Such
statemelritiitotaliy of duty on the part of the
Virtually, he is responsible
for frustratingi process-of’~appeal by not only indifference, but
,_alsc_’: faili;:re…t:.o take appropriate action in prosecuting
thoappvevalv time. Hardly any of the circumstances speak
abouts’sufticientiicause. Rightly, the Sessions Judge rejected
[the san,ie’.., I do not find any merit in this revision.
if 10. Besides it is noticed that though the revision was
“filed in this Court on 8.2.2008, despite lapse of 1 ‘/2 years, the
State has not served the notice regarding adrnission to the
respondent. It speaks for itseif the State’s half hearted attenzpt
in conducting the proceedings which needs to be.–de’f5ricajted’;… .
11. Finding no merit in the re_ViSi_on._ a:nd«..inac_it_ion_C.n ‘
the part of the State in getting “noticevfserxdred
respondent, it only deserves to .,rejectedV.”
12. Hence, the CrirninaI”Rbe’visioinv?etit~ion is rejected.
wp/- JUDGE