SRI M BALAKRISHNA v. Court of Karnataka
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
SRI M BALAKRISHNA S/O N.S. NANJEGOWDA, AGED 48 YEARS, NO.445, ‘ABHAYASHRAYA’, 23RD CROSS, NEAR BDA COMPLEX, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU SOUH, BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU-560070 PRESENTLY R/AT BETTAMAKKI VILLAGE, HANABALU HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN. (BY SRI. NAIK NITYANAND VENKATARAMAN., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka THE EXCISE POLICE SAKALESHAPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPLIT UP C.C.NO.146/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHAPUR AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29283 CRL.P No. 8085 of 2019 OFFENCE P/U/S 11,13(1)(a),14,15 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA)
The summary of the charge laid against the accused in C.C.No.75/2015 reads as follows:
¢£ÁAPÀ 21.11.2011 gÀAzÀÄ C¨ÁÌj ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ ¸ÀPÀ¯ÉñÀ¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÀ ¹§âA¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ C¨ÁÌj UÀ¸ÀÄÛ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ°èzÁÝUÀ §AzÀ RavÀ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÁ®A 2 gÀ°è PÁt¹gÀÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è C¨ÁÌj zÁ½ £ÉqɹzÁUÀ PÁ®A 4 gÀ°è PÁt¹gÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄ PÀ¼Àî¨sÀnÖ ¸ÁgÁ¬Ä ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÄÝ EzÀÄ PÀ||C||PÁAiÉÄÝ 1965gÀ PÀ®A 13(1)(J) 14.15gÀ jÃvÀå C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÉÄÝ 32(1)gÀ jÃvÀå ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀÝjAzÀ J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è zÀ¸ÀÛVj ªÀiÁr J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀgÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ J3 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ J1 ºÁUÀÆ J2 DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ CPÀæªÀÄ ZÀlĪÀnPÉUÉ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¤ÃrzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAvÉAiÉÄ F ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄAiÀÄ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄîÆßlPÉÌ - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29283 CRL.P No. 8085 of 2019 gÀÄdĪÁvÀĪÁzÀÝjAzÀ CAwªÀÄ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹zÉ.
As could be seen from the above, the only allegation against the present petitioner who was arrayed as accused No.3 was that he had assisted accused Nos.1 and 2.
Learned counsel points out that after the trial, the Trial Court has in fact acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 by an order dated 05.01.2017 and he therefore submits that the proceedings as against the petitioner to only own the estate would be untenable.
In the light of the allegations in the charge memo that the petitioner had only assisted accused Nos.1 and 2 and having regard to the fact that accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted after trial, the question of continuing the prosecution against the accused No.3 i.e., the petitioner would be meaning less. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:29283 CRL.P No. 8085 of 2019
I am therefore of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as against the petitioner and they are accordingly quashed.
This petition is thus allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.