This revision petition is filed by the State being

aggrieved by the orders dated 15.06.2015 passed in SC

No.1065/11 by the Additional City, Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru City closing the case against accused

no.7 (respondent herein) holding that, there is no material

to convict the accused based on the evidence produced by

the prosecution as per the decision of this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, respondent-

accused (Accused-7) along with 14 other accused persons

were charge sheeted by Hanumanthanagar Police in CC

No.16101/2008 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable

under Section 399 and 402 of IPC on the allegation that

the accused persons on 20.05.2008 at 1.10 p.m.

assembled at the open space on the side of Lord

Pralayakalada Veerabhadra Swamy Temple in Hanumantha

Nagar were making preparation to commit dacoity armed

with

deadly

weapons.

13

accused

persons

were

- 3 -

apprehended. The case was committed to the Sessions

Court in SC No.19/2009. The case was initially split up

against accused Nos. 3, 6 and 7. In so far as accused nos.

1,2,4,5,8,10,13 and 15 are conceeded, they were tried in

SC No.19/2009 and later, accused no.6 was tried in SC

557/2011 and were acquitted.

3. It is the case of prosecution that, in so far as

accused No.7 is concerned, since he was absconding, a

case against him was split up and SC 1065/11 came to be

registered. The trial Court issued non-bailable warrant,

proclamation and warrant for attachment to secure the

presence of accused no.7. Since his presence could not be

secured, evidence was recorded under Section 299 of

Cr.P.C.

4. Prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got

marked 3 documents and Exs.P1 to P3 and MO1. The

proceedings were initiated to transfer the case on hand to

the

Register

of

Long

Pending

Cases.

Instead

of

transferring the case to the Long Pending Case Register as

- 4 -

required under law, the trial Court by order dated

15.6.2015 which is impugned in this petition, has closed

the case against accused no.7 holding that, it is impossible

to convict the accused based on the evidence produced by

the prosecution.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State is

in this revision urging the following grounds:

That, the said order passed by the trial Court

closing the Sessions Case pending against respondent i.e.

accused no.7 is not legal and proper and the same is

opposed to procedures laid down under law. Relying upon

Chapter-IV of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968

which says, when process has been issued for the

attendance of the accused, but the case has remained

pending for a period of six months owing to the non-

appearance of the accused and the Magistrate is satisfied

that the presence of such accused cannot be secured

within a reasonable time or when the accused person

found to be of unsound mind is released or detained in

- 5 -

safe custody as per provisions of the Code, the Magistrate

shall report the case for the orders of the Sessions Judge,

who may, if he thinks fit, order that the name of such

accused shall be removed from the Register of Criminal

Cases. The case shall then be entered in the Register of

Long Pending Cases to be maintained by the Magistrates.

6. Further, it is urged that the benefit of acquittal

rendered against the other accused should not have been

extended to the present accused for the reason that the

trial

Court

cannot

decide

the

said

issue

without

appreciating the evidence led in the present case. Thus,

learned HCGP prays to allow the petition.

7. Heard Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP

appearing for Revision Petitioner-State and perused the

record.

8. Since respondent-herein i.e. accused no.7 is

absconding, the trial Court has passed the impugned order

relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

- 6 -

State of Karnataka vs. K.C.Narasegowda¹ wherein, it

has been held that, as the entire material evidence of

prosecution is o