IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.189/2017 BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULSOOR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 01 (By Sri.NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP) AND:
VENKATESH C S/O C V PANDURANGA AGED 47 YEARS NO 10/23, JYOTHI NILAYA CHABRIA LAYOUT, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD BENGLAURU - 560038 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.10.2016 PASSED BY THE XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.1368/2015 THEREBY DISCHARGING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3,4 AND 5 OF I.T.P. ACT AND ALSO U/S 370 OF IPC AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED NO.1/RESPONDENT U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRL.RP.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned HCGP Sri. Nasrulla Khan for the petitioner. Delay of 29 days in filing the petition is condoned for the reasons explained in the affidavit accompanying the application. Accordingly, I.A.1/17 is allowed.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, taken for final disposal. The State is assailing the order passed by the Special Court in discharging the respondent-accused from the alleged charges in respect of the offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The allegation is, this petitioner and the 2nd accused were indulged in the alleged offence as customers.
3. The learned HCGP for the petitioner submits that initially the concerned JMFC Court had taken cognizance of the offence and had examined seven witnesses. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Special Court. There was enough material placed on record to proceed against this petitioner. Still ignoring the incriminating evidence, the Trial Court has proceeded to discharge the respondent/accused.
4. Perused the order under challenge. The Trial Judge has discussed in detail the statutory provisions in respect of which the petitioner is charge sheeted. The fact that there is no clue about the indulgence of the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act in the mahazar on the basis of which FIR is registered overweighed for the consideration of the Trial Court to discharge him from charges.
The order is well reasoned and fair. There is no reason to entertain the petition. Hence, the petition is rejected.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE