IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRURY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.594 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
JCB NARAYAN @ NARAYAN S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 86/4, CHIKKA BEGUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE- 560 068 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAJASJEKAR R V, ADV.,) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE BANGALORE-560 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE- 560 002 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S CHANDRAHSEKARAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN S.C.NO.1682/2018, ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE WHICH IS REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE PFFENCE P/U/S 3, 25 OF INDIAM ARMS ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner who is accused No.1 in split up charge sheet in Sessions Case No.1682/2018 pending on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-63) initiated for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief as culled out from the charge sheet that a case was registered against accused Nos.1 and 7 and others in Crime No.11/2018 before the Parappana Agrahara Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 400 and 402 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, which was on account of a complaint lodged by Sri Balegowda, Police Inspector, Organized Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, N.T. Pete Mysuru Road alleging that on said date i.e. on 14.01.2008, on the directions of the Joint Police Commissioner, the case file and 8 accused persons were handed over to C.W.1 for further investigation and during the course of investigation, voluntary statement came to be given by accused No.1, wherein he disclosed that in the year 2006, he had illegally purchased S. and W. USA country made revolver with 7 K.F. Bullets from accused No.2 for Rs.50,000/- which was given to him by absconding accused No.4 -Sheikvali for the self protection and accused Nos.1 and 2 had sold the said revolver with bullets to accused No.3 - G.Babu for Rs.75,000/-. The said revolver along with bullets came to be seized from the house of accused No.3 under mahazar in the presence of panchas and during the course of enquiry, accused No.3 had revealed that he did not possess any license for the revolver and the bullets. Hence, accused No.3 was also taken to custody and accordingly a report came to be filed with Parappana Agrahara Police Station and FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Act.
3. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.4 was said to be absconding and not traced. Jurisdictional Magistrate on taking cognizance and on an application filed by the prosecution has committed the matter to the Sessions Court by order dated 31.05.2012. On such committal order being passed, the jurisdictional Sessions Court registered the same, in S.C. No.1126/2012 and accordingly, charge came to be framed against the accused Nos.1 to 3. On account of accused Nos.1 to 3 not pleading guilty and claiming to be tried, the matter was posted for trial. Subsequently, the petitioner herein who has been arraigned in S.C. No.1126/2012 came to be apprehended and on apprehending petitioner herein through body warrant, split up charge sheet came to be filed against petitioner in S.C. No.1682/2018 and petitioner is said to be in judicial custody as on today.
4. It is the contention of Sri Rajashekar R.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that accused No.1 having been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge after trial, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would only be an exercise in futility and as such, he prays for present proceedings now pending in split up charge sheet in S.C. No.1682/2018 against petitioner being quashed.
5. However, learned Government Advocate would submit if proceedings against the petitioner is quashed it would amount to granting a premium to the accused who was absconding from the clutches of law and as such, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records including the charge framed against accused Nos.1 to 3 on 30.10.2012 in S.C. No.1126/2012, it would emerge there from that allegations made against the present petitioner/accused No.1 as well accused No.3 who also has already been tried in SC 1126/2012 are similar and identical. In fact, prosecution which tried to prove guilt of accused No.2 in S.C. No.1126/2012, in all, had examined five witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 and 2. The witnesses who have been examined on behalf of prosecution are all official witnesses and even the Investigating Officer did not turn up for further cross examination. Even otherwise, learned trial Judge has noticed that when no evidence has been let in by the prosecution to prove that the revolver/pistol was in a working condition. Certificate - Ex.P5 issued by the Ballistic Expert –PW.4 to the effect that M.O.1 – Revolver is illegally manufactured with firearm and has also opined that it is not in a working condition, and as such, learned Trial Judge held conviction of the accused (A-2) cannot be upheld by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaspal Singh V/s State of Punjab reported in AIR 99 SC 1548. In the background of allegation made against the present petitioner i.e. accused No.1 which is to the effect that he had sold the revolver in question which was marked as M.O.1-Country made S and W USA Revolver and M.O.-2 - bullets to accused No.3 which had not been proved by prosecution against Accused no-2, question of continuing the case against petitioner/accused no-2 in respect of the very same revolver would only be exercise in futility and it could not sub - serve the ends of justice. Hence, this Court is of the considered view, if proceedings are continued against petitioner Accused no-1 it would be a waste of precious judicial time and it would not serve any purpose.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in S.C. No.1682/2018 on the file of LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH- 63) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 is quashed and petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.
(iii) Petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Sd/- JUDGE BS