IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4489 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SUKESH S/O GOVINDA KARIVELLUR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O SILVER CROSS ROAD DENNY HOUSE MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA-575001.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI: RAVINDRA B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULLAL POLICE STATION MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA-570020 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.180/11 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC (III COURT) MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA., THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has challenged the charge sheet laid against him for the offence under section 229A of Indian Penal Code.
2. The substance of the accusations against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein was convicted in S.C.No.61/1999 and was sentenced to imprisonment for one year by judgment and order dated 31.08.2002. The petitioner has violated the conviction warrant and remained absconding.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the provision of Section 229A Indian Penal Code are not applicable to the facts of the case. The said provision is applicable only when the accused who is charged with an offence and released on bail fails to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, he shall be punished for the imprisonment as provided therein. In the instant case, the petitioner has already suffered conviction and the allegation against the petitioner is that he was not available to serve the sentence in terms of the conviction warrant. This allegation does not constitute the offence under section 229A of Indian Penal Code. Further he submits that the petitioner has already served the sentence imposed on him in S.C.No.61/1999 and hence, even the conviction warrant has spent its purpose.
4. Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
[229A. Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in Court.- Whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause(the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear to Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation- The punishment under this section is-
(a) in addition to the punishment to which the offender would be liable on a conviction for the offence with which he has been charged; and (b) without prejudice to the power of the Court to order forfeiture of the bond.] 5. It is not the case of the respondent-State that subsequent to conviction of the petitioner, he was enlarged on bail and that he has failed to abide by the terms of bail bond, whereas, the substratum of the accusations against the petitioner is that he was not available for serving the sentence. This allegation, does not fall within the ambit of Section 229A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the said allegation cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.180/2011 pending on the file of III JMFC Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-