IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4660/2016 Between:
1. K.Krishnamurthy Aged 35 years s/o.E.Padmanabha 2. E.Padmanabha Aged 68 years s/o.E.Krishnamoorthy Both are r/a.Ananthapadmanabha Industries, Jodukatt, Miyar Village Karkala Taluk – 574 104. …PETITIONERS (By Sri.Ajay Prabhu .M., Advocate for Sri.Sachin B.S., Advocate) And:
State by Karkala Town Police Station, Karkala Pin: 574 104 Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court Building ...RESPONDENT (Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP) ---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 19.02.2016 passed in Crl.R.P. No.36/2010 filed by the petitioners on the file of the Prl.S.J., Udupi and consequently allow the above Crl.P.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District in Criminal Revision Petition No.36/2010.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl.
SPP for respondent and perused the records.
2. Petitioners herein were prosecuted before the Addl.
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Karkala in C.C.No.1993/2004 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 353 read with 34 of IPC. After trial, they were acquitted of the said charge.
3. In the course of trial, prosecution produced Ex.P3 – copy of search warrant and the original thereof at Ex.P4. The contention of the petitioners is that these documents were not produced along with the charge sheet and they were later got up by the prosecution only to bolster up a false case against the petitioners. Thus, petitioners sought for appropriate action against witnesses PW.1 to PW.5 under section 344 Cr.P.C. for perjury.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the documents relied on by the prosecution were got up at a later point of time, with a view to secure conviction of the petitioners. The original search warrant contained some endorsement and writings on the back of Ex.P4 which are conspicuously absent in the copy produced by the prosecution at Ex.P3. It is the submission of the learned counsel that these discrepancies would go to show that original itself was got up by the forest officials. Secondly, he contends that these documents were not produced along with the charge sheet which throws serious doubt about the genuineness of the documents and under the said circumstances, the courts below ought to have proceeded against the forest officials under section 344 of Cr.P.C.
5. I have considered the submissions and have perused the records.
Late production of the documents does not lead to the inference that the documents were manipulated or forged or created. The said documents having been admitted in evidence and proved as per the rules of Evidence Act, in the absence of any finding by the courts below that Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were forged and concocted, there was absolutely no basis for the petitioners herein to seek action against PWs.1 to 5 under section 344 of Cr.P.C. The application itself was misconceived. The petitioners are not certain as to which of the witnesses have committed the alleged act of perjury. Undeniably, the search warrants are issued by the court and not by the witnesses. If for any reason there was any discrepancy in the order passed by the court, same could have been ascertained with reference to court record and not by comparing it with the copy produced by the forest officials. It appears that the endorsements found on back side of Ex.P4 was not copied while issuing Ex.P3. The same does not lead to the inference that Ex.P4 namely original itself was concocted and created. Thus viewed from any angle, I do not find any cause of action for petitioners to invoke Section 344 Cr.P.C. based on Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss