SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Kar) 1823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.A. PATIL, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti-Corruption Branch), Bengaluru – Petitioner
Versus
Sri. Galli Janardhan Reddy S/o Sri. G. Chengareddy – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060 of 2019
Decided On : 18-10-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar.
For the Respondents: Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, Sri. Chandrashekar R.P.

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Section 5 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 216 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B 420, 379, 411 and 447 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) - MMDR Act, 1957 - Section 23 - Karnataka Forest Act. 1963 - Section 24 – Investigation by CBI - Criminal breach of trust, cheating, mischief by destroying or moving landmark - Accused persons They excavated iron ore illegally from various mines and forest area surrounding Bellary District and sold the same to M/s. Eagle Traders and Logistics and others and illegally transported to Belekeri port to export same and thereby they have committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, mischief by destroying or moving landmark fixed by public authority, criminal trespass, forgery for purpose of cheating, using forged documents as genuine documents and misuse of official position and power and thereby they have committed alleged offences – Held, consideration entire charge sheet material and conduct of the accused, charge has been framed by trial Court. Subsequently, it cannot go back and pass the order like one which is challenged before this Court. As discussed above after framing the charge and recording of the evidence, Court becomes functus officio and it cannot alter earlier order of framing of the charge. In that light also learned trial Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, as such it has to be interfered with - Trial Court without keeping in view the above said proposition of law has passed illegal order, as such the same is liable to be set aside - Petitions are allowed

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on I.A. No. 1/2019 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in all the petitions. They are accompanied with affidavit of the Inspector of Police, CBI. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent- accused has no objection.

By accepting the cause shown therein, I.A. No. 1/2019 in all the petitions are allowed. Delay is condoned.

2. These petitions are filed by CBI Bengaluru challenging the orders passed by LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (Special Court exclusively deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka), on Interlocutory Applications filed by respondent-accused in these petitions under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. in Special C.C. Nos. 135/2013, 21/2014 and 6/2014 dated 15.9.2018, 18.09.2018, 17.09.2018 respectively.

3. I have heard Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-accused.

4. The factual matrix of the case are that a case was registered against M/s. S.B. Logistics and others for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B 420, 379, 411 and 447 of IPC and also under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short) and also under Section 21 r/w. Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) and Section 23 of MMDR Act, 1957 and also under Section 24 of Karnataka Forest Act. 1963. After completion of investigation, CBI filed the charge sheet against accused persons.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 being the Minister of Bellary District, accused No. 2 being the Deputy Conservator of Forests, accused No. 3 Deputy Director of Mines and Geology Department, accused No. 4 who is working as Personal Assistant to accused No. 1, accused No. 5 being the Director of the Company under the name and style of M/s. Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. and accused No. 6 being the Partner of M/s. Swastik Steels, Hospet, accused No. 7 being the then Conservator of Forests, Bellary, entered into criminal conspiracy in Bellary District for the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.5.2010. They excavated iron ore illegally from various mines and forest area surrounding Bellary District and sold the same to M/s. Eagle Traders and Logistics and others and illegally transported to Belekeri port to export the same and thereby they have committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, mischief by destroying or moving the landmark fixed by the public authority, criminal trespass, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged documents as genuine documents and misuse of the official position and power and thereby they have committed alleged offences.

6. The trial Court secured the presence of the accused and after hearing, charge was framed against all the accused persons. Accused pleaded not guilty, they claims to be tried and they started facing the trial. So far prosecution has got examined several witnesses in all the cases. When that being the case, respondent-accused who has been shown as accused Nos. 1, 6 and 2 filed applications under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to drop charge under Section 409 of IPC as the basic ingredients of Section 405 of IPC are not made out as against him. The said application was seriously contested by CBI by filing its objections and after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties the said application was allowed and the proceedings under Section 409 were dropped against the respondent-accused. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

7. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-CBI are that the order passed by the Special Court is contrary to law, facts and material placed on record. The said order has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is his further submission that Section 216 of Cr.P.C. empowers criminal Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Though a wide power

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top