MOIN BASHA KURNOOLI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(Kar) 440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLI - PETITIONER
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - RESPONDENT
CRL. P. NO. 100319/2014
C/W. CRL. P. NO. 100326/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100335/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100336/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100353/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100357/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100358/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100377/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100380/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100404/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100405/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100423/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100454/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100480/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100481/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100482/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100483/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100484/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100485/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100500/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100507/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100510/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100511/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100530/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100531/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100532/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100533/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100536/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100567/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100568/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100443/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100444/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100445/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100446/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100447/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100448/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100449/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100456/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100457/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100458/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100459/2014,
CRL. P. NO. 100460/2014 & CRL. P. NO. 100891/2014
(TOTALLY 43 MATTERS)
Decided On: 25th DAY OF JULY, 2014

Advocates Appeared:
SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.

Headnote:INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Principles: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Held, before interpreting a statute, Court should in mind that, a statute is an authentic document containing the intention and expression of the will of the legislature. The function of the Court is to interpret that document according to the intent of the legislature that made it. The Court cannot resile from that function, however ambiguous or difficult the application of the words of the statute or the Act may be. The Court is bound to make its endeavour to place some meaning, upon them. In doing so, the Court should bear in mind, that when the question arises as to the meaning of certain provisions in a statute, it is not only legitimate but proper to read those provisions in their context. The context means, the statute as a whole, the previous statute if any, or any other connecting statutes in pari materia, the general scope of the statute and the specific and special intention of the legislature, every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, as far as possible, to make a provision consistent with the entire enactment or series of statutes, or with other relevant statutes relating to the subject matter. It is also a fundamental principle of interpretation of statutes that, the words of the statute, when there is any doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonize with the subject of the enactment and the object of the Legislature has in view. In order to eradicate the anomaly regarding the doubt about the meaning of a provision in a statute, if the choice is between two interpretations the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, one should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction based on the intention of the legislature to bring the effective and intended result. Where alternative constructions are equally open, that alternative is to be chosen which harmonizes with other statutes and consistent with smooth working of the entire system which the statute purports to be regulating, and that alternative has to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty, friction, or confusion into the working of the system.
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 - Section 78(3): [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Nature of offence under - Question whether arrest could be made without a warrant? Whether investigation without permission by competent Magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C., vitiated by incurable illegalities or defects? Held, It is a non-cognizable offence. Without a warrant, Police Officer cannot arrest. The investigation done in these cases is seriously vitiated by incurable defect and the investigation itself is illegal and the same is not tenable. These proceedings cannot be called as irregular proceedings. The provisions of Sections 460 and 461 of the Code also does not come to the aid of the Police to file a report to the Magistrate to take cognizance, unless he applies his judicious mind on the police report submitted after investigation of a non-cognizable offence and treats the report as a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code. The entire investigation and the cognizance of all further proceedings in the above cases are vitiated by incurable defects and illegality. Proceedings were quashed.
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 - Section 78(3): [K. N. Phaneendra, J] Playing ’matka’ in public places - Held, It is a non-cognizable offence. Investigation conducted by police without obtaining permission of Magistrate is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., Reports (charge-sheets) filed by police with regard to such offence cannot be treated as ’ complaint’ under Section 2(d) of Cr. P.C., If the investigation in cases at initial stages itself is vitiated by serious incurable defect, said irregularity amounting to illegality and all further proceedings are equally vitiated, the proceedings is liable to be quashed.

ORDER

All the above said 43 Criminal Petitions are clubbed and taken up together for the purpose of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and legal implications involved in these cases, they are conveniently disposed of by this common judgment since identical questions of law have been raised in these Petitions.

2. Before adverting to the factual and legal matrix of these cases, I feel it is just and necessary to place on record a word of appreciation for the assistance rendered by Sri Sheelvant, learned counsel for the petitioners in the above said cases, Sri Shivraj and as well Sri Banakar, learned Addl. SPP and though not connected to these cases Sri Gundawade Advocate and standing counsel for Lokayukta for having assisted this Court with all relevant laws and as well the relevant judgments of the different High Courts.

3. I feel it is just and appropriate to begin this judgment with the concept of “Rule of Law”. Our democratic polity under the Constitution, is based on the concept of “Rule of law” which we have adopted and given to ourselves serving as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic system, in upholding and respecting supremacy of law in our Country.

4. Everyone whether individually or collectively is questionable under the supremacy of law. Whoever he may be, howsoever high, powerful, he is under the laws of the Country. When we recognize the laws so powerful than any other power in the country, such laws to be adhered to by one and all, and it is the fundamental duty of the courts to zealously safe guard the interest of the citizens of the country protecting their rights guaranteed under the Constitution and other enacted laws for the time being in force.

5. At the outset, the factual matrix of these cases are relevant before enumerating and answering the legal questions raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners and lengthy arguments advanced on both the sides.

6. Different Police stations particularly by name Cowl Bazaar, Bruce pet, Gandhinagar, APMC Yard, Bellary Rural and Extension Police in Bellary, TB Dam Police and Town Police Station, Hospet in Bellary District (Respondents in the above said cases) have on different dates, on receiving credible information that some people were indulged in playing ‘Matka’ at several areas situated within the jurisdiction of the above said Police Stations, conducted raids along with their respective police staff and panch witnesses. During the course of investigation, the police have arrested some of the accused persons and seized some articles which were used for the purpose of playing the said game of ‘Matka’ and thereafter, registered cases respectively and specifically u/s.78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘K.P Act’ for short. After, due investigation on different dates, the respective police have submitted charge sheets against the accused (petitioners herein) for the offence specifically under Section 78 (3) of the K.P Act.

7. As could be seen from the records, in some of the cases, the accused have pleaded guilty and fine had been imposed by the Court. (Who are all not before this court in these petitions?) In some of the cases cognizance being taken, the matters are pending before the jurisdictional magistrate and summons were issued to some of the accused and in some of the cases, accused persons appeared and enlarged on bail. In some of the cases, plea of the accused have been recorded and some of the cases were set down for evidence. It appears, in none of the cases where petitioners are the accused, the trial has neither begun nor concluded. In this background, the petitioners have approached this court challenging the very investigation done by the police and charge sheet filed against the petitioners and cognizance taken by the Courts, as abinitiovoid because of the nonperformance of the statutory duties by the Investigating officers.

8. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners strenuously argued before thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(Kar) 440

Cases Referred (3)