IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1061/2016 BETWEEN 1. LOKESH S/O HONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MELAGODU VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN-573 201 2. THANDAVESHWAR S/O MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O SWARNAMBA NILAYA, NEAR ARALIKATTE, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN-573 201.
3. YATHISHA S/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, WORKING AT PRIVATE COMPANY R/O NEAR HARSHA MAHAL HOTEL, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN-573201. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAHUL RAI K, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DUDDA POLICE STATION, HASSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI ABHISHEK MISHRA STATION INCHARGE OFFICER PETRONET MHB LIMITED KIADB INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE BOMMANAYAKANHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN.PIN:573201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5890/2014, REGISTERED AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, COURT, HASSAN AND ALLOW THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners are accused of committing theft of petroleum products by cutting the gas pipeline and thereby causing a loss to an extent of Rs.26,640/-.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accusations made against the petitioners are false and baseless. Petitioners were not cited as accused in the FIR. Only after about 5 ½ months from the date of registration of the FIR, based on the further statement of the complainant, they have been implicated in the alleged offence. Material collected by the investigating agency prima facie does not constitute the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 15(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User Inland) Act, 1962. The provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offence is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court.
3. Learned SPP-2 appearing for respondent-State however has argued in support of charge sheet. He would submit that material collected by the investigating agency prima facie make out the offences charged against the petitioners.
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The material produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet prima facie discloses the commission of offence by the petitioners. Sufficiency of the evidence cannot be gone into by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC. In the course of investigation, the prosecution has seized and recovered a drilling machine as well as a spade and hammer used for the commission of offence. In the wake of this evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence collected by the investigating agency does not implicate the petitioners in the alleged offence, cannot be accepted.
6. In so far as the application of provisions of Section 15(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User Inland) Act, 1962 are concerned, the provision reads as under:
“15. Penalty; (1)xxxxx (2)xxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) Whoever, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause damage to or destruction of any pipeline laid under section 7, causes by fire, explosive substance or otherwise damage to the pipeline being used for transportation of petroleum products, crude oil or gas with the intent to commit sabotage or with the knowledge that such act is so imminently dangerous that it may in all probability cause death of any person or such bodily injury likely to cause death of any person, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than ten years but may extend to imprisonment for life or death.”
7. Since the charge against the accused persons is causing intentional damage to the pipe line, these allegations squarely fall within the ambit of Section 15(4) of the above Act. Therefore, even on that score, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings.
Consequently, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Having regard to the contentions urged in the petition, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of communication of this order.
It is made clear that, the observations made in this order shall not in any way influence the trial and the trial Court shall independently decide the case on merits without being influenced by the observation of this Court.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR