Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 45938
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. Nagaprasanna, J
M. Venkata Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP 17316 / 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Allah Bakash M.
For the Respondents: Sri. Thejesh P.
The acquittal of a co-accused benefits another accused in a split charge sheet when no independent evidence exists against them, warranting quashing of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - Sections 32 and 34 - Quashing of charge sheet - Petitioner sought to quash proceedings in C.C.No.50/2012 for offences punishable under the Act, arguing that acquittal of co-accused should benefit him - Court found no independent evidence against the petitioner and noted that the split charge sheet was unnecessary as the co-accused had been acquitted - The prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt led to the conclusion that further trial would be a waste of judicial resources. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers - Court emphasized the need to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings when no independent evidence exists against the accused, thereby preventing unnecessary trials. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused No.2, was charged in a split charge sheet after co-accused No.1 was acquitted of similar charges. The prosecution's case relied solely on official witnesses without independent corroboration, leading to reasonable doubt.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that acquittal of the co-accused benefits the petitioner, as there was no new evidence against him, and thus the proceedings were quashed.
Issues: Whether the acquittal of a co-accused can lead to the quashing of charges against another accused in a split charge sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of evidence and the acquittal of a co-accused, further proceedings would serve no purpose, emphasizing judicial efficiency and fairness.
Result: Criminal petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to proceedings based on prior acquittal. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of trial despite co-accused acquittal. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and procedural compliance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.50/2012 registered for offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act , 1965 ('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri. Allah Bakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Thejesh P., learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.
3. The petitioner is accused No.2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.12/2007. The police after investigation file a charge sheet against both the accused. The concerned Court tries accused No.1 in C.C.No.552/2008 and acquits him of the offences so alleged in terms of its order dated 16.01.2012. Since the petitioner was not available for trial, at that point in time, a split charge sheet was drawn against him in C.C.No.50/2012 and the petitioner is now sought to be tried in the aforesaid C.C.No.50/2012 for the said offences alleged, which are the ones punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act. The petitioner is before this Court on the score that findings rendered by the concerned Court acquitting accused No.1 should enure to the benefit of the petitioner - accused No.2 as well.
4. Learned HCGP would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner also has to come out clean in a full blown trial, as accused No.1 has come out clean and the person who had escaped trial should not be shown any indulgence.
5. The submission of the learned HCGP would be acceptable in the first blush, what is required to be noticed is wastage of precious judicial time, as the petitioner would eventually get acquitted of the offences, as they are the ones punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act. The concerned Court while acquitting accused No.1, has held as follows:
" Point Nos.1 2:
10. Prosecution examined Pws-1 to 3 all the official witnesses and no independent witnesses. Pw-1 M.N. Susanna, Pw-2 Kadiah are raiding party members and Pw-3 P. Ramesha is the I.O.. All the officials expected to support and they supported.
11. Prosecution has to prove that on 30-12-2007, at about 10-30 a.m. near the tank of Koththanahalli village on Begur- Yediyala road, the accused found in illegal possession and illegally transporting 58 bottles of Original Choice Whisky liquor of 180ml each and 26 bottles of Old Monk Rum of 180 ml each Card Board boxes on the Motorcycle No.KA-03/EC/6549 without any licence or permit in contravention of Karnataka Excise Act , 1965. Further, on the above said date, time and place, the accused found in possession of said intoxicant, knowing that the same is being unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, cultivated or collected or knowing that the prescribed duty not to have been paid thereon, and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 32 & 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubts.
12. According to Pw-1 M.M. Susanna & Pw-2 Kadalah on 30-12-2009, when they were patrolling near the tank of Koththanahalli village on Begur-Yediyala road, they found two persons in illegal possession and illegally transporting liqours in the Card Board boxes on the Motorcycle. When they signaled to stop the Motorcycle, the said two persons proceeded without stopping it. When they chased the said two persons, they left the Motorcycle and the bag containing alleged liquors. On opening the said bag, they found 58 bottles of Original Choice Whisky liquor of 180ml each and 13 bottles of Old Monk Rum of 180 ml each Card Board boxes. They seized the said liqour bottles and took 26 bottles for chemical examination, covering white cloth sealed the same. Seizure panchanama was conducted as per Ex.P-1 and Pws-1 & 2 signed the same.. They id
