IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.687 of 2014 BETWEEN:
H.V. VENKATACHALAIAH, S/O VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, CHELURU POLICE STATION, CHELURU VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, Presently at : POLICE INSPECTOR, ECONOMIC OFFENCE DEPARTMENT, CID, BANGALORE - 560 001.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI V. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGEPALLI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. CHIKKAGANGAPPA @ GANGADHARA, S/O VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT, 5TH WARD, BAGEPALLI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 561 207.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.T. NAIK, HCGP SPP FOR R-1;
SRI K.S. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2014 PASSED IN C.C.No.215/2013 AT ANNEXURE-A, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2014 passed in CC No.215/2013 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura, allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by summoning the present petitioner as accused in the criminal case.
2. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that before allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court has not issued any notice to the petitioner and heard him in the matter. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Asha Somashekar and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2016) 4 AKR 392 and an unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2956/2018, decided on 06.07.2018 (Basavaraj K.C and others vs. The State of Karnataka and another).
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records.
4. The respondent-Police filed the charge sheet against one T.Shankar for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and after recording the plea, the prosecution got examined two witnesses and after completion of the examination-in-chief, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. stating that the vehicle in question was driven by the petitioner herein, who is said to be the PSI of Chelur Police Station and not the accused who was charge sheeted by the Police. The order under revision shows that based on the application filed by the prosecution, the Trial Court has held that the evidence on record is sufficient to say that the present petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The finding of the Trial Court without issuing notice to the petitioner is illegal. This Court in the case of Smt. Asha (supra) has held as follows;
“ Section 319 of Cr.P.C., - summoning of Additional Accused – Criminal Court must issue prior notice to any person, before calling upon him to be made as Additional Accused in any criminal case – Order of summoning any person as accused, without any prior notice and opportunity of being hearing, shall not be sustainable.”
This Court in Criminal Petition No.2956/2018 relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2004 SCC 1400 has set aside the order passed by the Trial Court on the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. without issuing notice to the accused.
5. On perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that no notice has been issued by the Trial Court to the petitioner before allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order under revision is admittedly not in accordance with law and against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well this Court. Therefore, the order under revision is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
The order under challenge is set aide and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the petitioner and to proceed with the case, in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE mv