IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.274 of 2017 BETWEEN SRI KARIGOWDA, S/O LATE ARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NIDUDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 34.
(BY SRI PRADEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE, HASSAN RURAL POLICE, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.
(BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2017 PASSED IN S.C.No.320/2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN ON THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 319 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (ANNEXURE-B).
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2017 passed on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in SC No.320/2014 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, impleading him as accused No.4.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the name of this petitioner is shown as accused No.4 in the FIR at the initial stage, but after the investigation, the Investigating Officer has deleted the name of the petitioner as there is no sufficient evidence against him. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Sessions Court, trial has been conducted and at the end of the trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to implead this petitioner as additional accused No.4. The Trial Court, without issuing notice to the petitioner, has straightaway allowed the application filed by the prosecution, which is against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Somashekar and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2016) 4 AKR 392. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same.
3. Though learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition and supported the order passed by the Trial Court, but there is no material placed before the Court to show that the Trial Court issued any prior notice to the petitioner before allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
5. The order sheet of the Trial Court clearly shows that on 29.12.2016, the evidence of PW.15 has been completed, Exs.P.20 and P.21 were marked and the learned Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C for impleding this petitioner as accused No.4. Subsequently, the Trial Court adjourned the matter for hearing on the application and thereafter, on 12.01.2017, the Trial Court heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and passed the order dated 24.01.2017 by allowing the application to implead this petitioner as accused No.4. On perusal of the order sheet, absolutely there is no material placed before this Court to show that the Trial Court has issued any notice to the petitioner prior to impleadig him as additional accused. In this regard, this Court wants to rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Asha (supra) wherein, this Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court for impleading the applicant as additional accused in the absence of any prior notice. In another similar case this Court in the case of Virupakshappa and others vs. State of Karnataka (decided on 17.10.2017, Crl.RP.No.1015/2017) has also remanded the matter to the Trial Court. Therefore, it is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that prior to impleading the applicant as additional accused whether his name was found in the FIR or deleted from the charge sheet, notice is required to be issued prior to impleading him as accused. Therefore, the order under revision deserves to be set aside as illegal and it is against the ration laid down by this Court. Accordingly, I pass the following;
Order The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The order under revision dated 24.01.2017 passed on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in SC No.320/2014 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and after hearing the accused/petitioner pass the order and proceed in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the main petition itself, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE mv