IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5984 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHADEVA S/O GOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT : DEVAHARSALLI VILLAGE & POST NANJANGUD TALUK & DISTRICT – 571 312.
..PETITIONER (BY SRI.MUNIYAPPA, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HULLALA POLICE STATION, MANGALORE RURAL TALUK MANGALORE DISTRICT – 575 001.
.. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.99/2009 IN CR. NO.236/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CJM, MANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY HIM P/U/S 465, 468, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC ALONG WITH SEC. 4(1) AND 20(1) TO (4) OF KARNATAKA MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND RULES 42, 43 AND 44 OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1994.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the respondent.
2. This petition is filed seeking to quash the charge sheet laid against the petitioner/accused No.3 under Sections 465, 468, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code along with Section 4(1) and 20(1) to (4) of Karnataka Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules 42, 43 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 were found transporting sand in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-E-5506 without valid permit and during investigation it revealed that the permit produced by them was fake and forged. The allegations against the petitioner herein is that the said permit bears the name of the petitioner.
4. There is nothing on record to show that permit seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 was forged by the petitioner herein. Merely because the name of the petitioner finds place in the said permit, it cannot be presumed that the same has been forged by the petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has derived any benefit under the said transaction. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner herein forged the said document and handed over the same to accused Nos.1 and 2. When accused Nos.1 and 2 are found using fake permit, in the absence of any evidence to show that petitioner was a privy to the alleged offence, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner herein has forged or fabricated the said permit. The prosecution has not collected any material to show that the permit in question was either found in possession of the petitioner or that he was instrumental in forging the said permit.
5. Learned Addl. SPP is also unable to point out from the material available on record that the alleged permit was got up at the instance of the petitioner or that he was instrumental in forging the said permit.
5. In that view of the matter, there being no prima facie material to substantiate the charges, prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences would be illegal and abuse of process of Court.
As a result, the petition is allowed. The impugned charges sheet and subsequent proceedings in C.C. No.99/2009 on the file of I Addl. CJM, Mangalore, are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.