The petitioner calls in question the split charge sheet in

C.C.No.770/2022 registered for offences punishable under

Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act r/w Section 379

of the IPC. Petitioner is accused No.1.

2. Heard Sri.Shaik Ismail Zabiulla, learned counsel for

petitioner

and

Sri.Shankar.H.S.,

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as

borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

3

On 16.02.2003 a complaint is registered by the Police Sub-

Inspector,

Bhadravathi

Rural

Police Station

against the

petitioner and another. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR

came to be registered in Crime No.51/2003 for offences

punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest

Act r/w Section 379 of the IPC. The petitioner was taken into

custody on 16.02.2003 and thereafter was enlarged on bail.

4. On completion of investigation, the respondent police

filed chargesheet against the petitioner and two other persons.

Since the petitioner and accused No.3 remained absent, a split

charge sheet was filed against accused No.2 in the year 2010. In

2011, the Court committed the case to the sessions which was

later on numbered as S.C.73/2011. On 29.10.2011, the trial

Court acquitted the co-accused/accused No.2, on the basis of

the evidence holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the

guilt of accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

4

5. After about 11 years of pronouncement of the said

order, the petitioner was arrested on 24.02.2022 and on

4.3.2022 a split charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in

C.C.No.770/2022 and accused No.3. On 10.3.2022 the bail

application also is rejected and the petitioner remains in

custody. It is the initiation or registration of a split charge sheet

against the petitioner in C.C.No.770/2022 that is called in

question in the subject petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently argue and contend that the petitioner is similarly

situated as that of accused No.2 who was acquitted 11 years

ago. Since there was no notice served upon the petitioner, he

was not even aware of what has happened in the trial and would

submit that the trial Court has, on the basis of the evidence,

held that there was no case against the accused No.2. The

finding would cover the petitioner as well and would place

reliance upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

5

in the case of RAVI @ RAVICHANDRA P v. THE STATE rendered

in Crl.P.4796/2017 disposed on 05.07.2017.

7. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was

absconding throughout the trial and if proceedings are quashed

against him, it would be putting a premium to a person who has

remained out of the trial and would submit that it is for the

petitioner to face trial and come out clean. He would make a

feeble attempt to justify the action contending that the

allegations against the petitioner are different.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What lead to

registration of the crime against the accused was that while

patrolling in the forest the Circle Inspector receives credible

information that sandalwood was being smuggled in a car at

6

Holehonnur Road. The car was intercepted at about 12.15 a.m.

and due to darkness a person fled and another person who was

in the car was arrested. Sandalwood pieces were recovered. The

petitioner was arraigned as accused No.1 and one Munavar

Pasha as accused No.2. The petitioner along with accused No.2

was arrested and later on enlarged on bail. Since the petitioner

was absconding, a split charge sheet was filed against accused

No.2 and the trial was conducted. Throughout the trial, the

petitioner was missing and an NBW was issued in LPR 6/2021

and the Station