0

Reversal of Reversal: Supreme Court Acquits Accused After Faulty Appeal Process; Upholds Trial Court’s Decision.

Blog , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State Of Karnataka

CASE NUMBER – Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010

DATED ON – 19.04.2024

QUORUM – Justice Sandeep Mehta & Justice B.R. Gavai

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant, Chanagouda (PW-1) owns agricultural lands and a house in the village, Babanagar, Bijapur, Karnataka. It is alleged by the prosecution that in the morning of 19th September, 2001, the deceased Malagounda, son of the complainant, along with labourers/servants Revappa (PW-2), Siddappa (PW-3), Hiragappa (PW-4) and Suresh (PW-5) had gone to put up a bund (check dam) in their land. The work continued till 3.30 p.m. and thereafter, the four servants (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5), along with the deceased Malagounda and the complainant(PW-1) proceeded to the village. They had reached near the land of one Ummakka Kulkarni at about 4.00 pm, where A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 suddenly came around and exhorted that the way the complainant party had murdered Sangound, they would take revenge upon the members of the complainant party in the same manner. A-1 holding a jambai, A-2 holding an axe, A-3 holding a sickle and A-4 holding an axe, belaboured Malagounda, as a result of which he fell down. The assailants thereafter threatened the complainant(PW-1) that if he tried to intervene, he too would meet the same fate as his son. Fearing for his own life, the complainant(PW-1) ran away and hid behind the bushes in order to avoid being beaten by the accused. After sunset, the complainant(PW-1) returned to the village and narrated about the incident to his family members. A written complaint of this incident came to be submitted by the complainant(PW-1) at Tikota Police Station on 20th September, 2001 at 4.00 am in the morning whereupon FIR(Exhibit P-10) was registered and investigation commenced. After conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants(A-1, A-2, A-3) and other accused(A-4, A-5 and A-6) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC in the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel and after thoroughly appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court proceeded to hold that the prosecution could not prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all manner of doubt and acquitted all the six accused vide judgment dated 23rd July, 2005. The State preferred an appeal under Section 378(1) read with 378(3) CrPC challenging the acquittal of the accused. The learned Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka partly allowed the said appeal vide judgment dated 14th September, 2009 and while reversing the acquittal of the accused A-1, A-2 and A-3 as recorded by the trial Court, convicted and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a Rs.50,000 fine for each of the convicts.

 

ISSUE

Whether the Learned Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s Decision.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANTS

The Learned counsel representing the appellants urged that the view taken by the High Court in reversing the acquittal of the appellants recorded by the trial Court by a well-reasoned judgment is totally contrary to the settled principles laid down by the same Court regarding scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was also contended that neither the disclosure statements nor the recovery memos bear the signatures/thumb impressions of the accused and hence, the recoveries cannot be read in evidence or attributed to the accused/appellants. He also stated that the acquittal can be reversed only if the findings recorded by the trial Court are found to be patently illegal or perverse or if the only view possible on the basis of the evidence available on record points towards the guilt of the accused. If two views are possible, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court should not be interfered with unless perversity or misreading of evidence is reflected from the judgment recording acquittal. The Learned counsel further urged that the learned Division Bench of the High Court, while rendering the judgment reversing acquittal of the appellant barely referred to the findings on the basis of which the trial Court had acquitted the accused by extending them the benefit of doubt. Rather, the High Court went on to record its own fresh conclusions after re-appreciation of the evidence and hence, the impugned judgment deserved to be set aside.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. He urged that learned Division Bench of the High Court, while considering the appeal against acquittal, thoroughly reappreciated the evidence available on record and arrived at an independent and well considered conclusion that the depositions of the eye witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-15 were convincing and did not suffer from any significant contradictions or infirmities so as to justify the decision of the trial Court in discarding their evidence and acquitting the accused of the charges. He stated that the so called contradictions and discrepancies highlighted by the trial Court in the evidence of the eyewitnesses for doubting their evidentiary worth are trivial and insignificant and acquittal of accused as recorded by the learned trial Court disregarding the testimony of the eyewitnesses is based on perverse and unacceptable reasoning. Learned counsel thus urged that the High Court was perfectly justified in reversing the acquittal of the accused appellants by the impugned judgment which does not require interference in this appeal.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through the impugned judgement of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court stated that none of the essential mandates governing an appeal against acquittal were adverted to by the learned Division Bench which proceeded to virtually decide the appeal as a first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recorded its own findings to hold the accused appellants(A-1, A-2 and A-3) guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, and thus, on the face of record, the judgment of the High Court causing interference with the acquittal of the accused appellants as recorded by the trial Court is contrary to the principles established by law. They were of the firm opinion that neither the disclosure memos were proved in accordance with law nor the recovery of the weapons from open spaces inspire confidence and were wrongly relied upon by the High Court as incriminating material so as to reverse the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court, and also stated that that the view taken by the trial Court in the judgment dated 23rd July, 2005 recording acquittal of accused is a plausible and justifiable view emanating from the discussion of the evidence available on record, and that the trial Court’s judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Hence, the High Court was not justified in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and that the impugned judgment dated 14th September, 2009 rendered by the High Court could be not be sustained and was reversed, and held that the accused/appellants were hereby acquitted of all the charges.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Karnataka High Court: Accused Discharged in Suicide Abetment Case Due to Insufficient Evidence

Blog, Karnataka High Court , , , , ,

Case title: ONKARAPPA G H & ORS VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 141 OF 2024

Dated on: 21st may 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Shruthi was working as a maid in the house of Sri. G.H. Omkarappa and Smt. Anusuyamma at Shivamogga. The deceased was staying with them since two years. The complainant being a mother of the deceased-Shruthi used to visit the house where Shruthi was working often and she was enquiring about the welfare of her daughter. Such being the fact, she has received a message from the reliable source that her daughter committed suicide in the house of the accused around 2.00 pm. Immediately after receiving the said information, the complainant and others went to Shivamogga and learnt that the deceased Shruthi committed suicide inside the room and it was bolted from inside. It is further stated in the complaint that, the door was opened with the help of the localities in the presence of police. On opening the said room, the complainant found that her daughter was hanging from the ceiling fan and also noticed a chit said to have written by the deceased. Hence, she lodged a complaint. Upon the complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Cr.No.207/2015 for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. After conducting investigation submitted charge sheet. Being aggrieved by filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure Act (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

ISSUES

  • Whether the accused can be charged under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting suicide based on the evidence provided in the complaint and charge sheet.
  • Whether the contents of the complaint and charge sheet provide sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and whether they disclose the necessary elements of instigation or harassment required for abetment of suicide.
  • Whether the Trial Court’s decision to reject the application for discharge was justified or if it amounted to an abuse of process of law.

LEGAL PROVISINS

Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 306: Abetment of Suicide Section 306 of the IPC deals with the abetment of suicide. It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 34: Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention Section 34 deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), Section 227: Discharge Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. provides the power to discharge. It states that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Arun Shyam, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Suyog  Herele, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that the findings of the Trial Court in rejecting the application for discharge is erroneous and against to the facts of the case. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. In fact, the complainant in her complaint stated that she was visiting the house of the accused and she was enquiring about the welfare of her daughter. The averments of the complaint did not disclose either instigation or harassment to commit suicide. It is further submitted that a letter said to have been found in the room where the deceased committed suicide clearly discloses that, the deceased was loving a boy and she mentioned the phone numbers and narrated certain facts in it. However, the deceased mentioned in the end of the said letter, that accused are responsible for her suicide. That itself is not sufficient to attract the ingredients of instigation or abetment to commit suicide. Such being the fact, asking the petitioner to face the trial, certainly, amounts to an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. Making such submissions, the learned Senior Counsel prays to allow the petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the order of rejection passed by the Trial Court and submitted that as per the averments of the complaint, the deceased Shruthi was working in the house of the accused as a maid and she committed suicide in their house by leaving death note. The said death note contains some facts and the same are required to be proved during full-fledged trial. In case, if the petition is allowed, the facts remain unchallenged. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Making such submission, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also after having perused the findings of the Trial Court, the Trial Court while rejecting the application opined that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to see only prima-facie material and further opined that the contents of the death note are required to be proved during trial. It is settled principles of law that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Further, it also requires an active act or direct act which lead the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

In the present case, either the averments of the complaint or averments of the charge sheet do not disclose neither mens-rea nor instigation. Even assuming that the contents of the death note are true, it can be inferred from the averments that the deceased was loving a boy and she mentioned the phone numbers and expressed her willingness to meet him and at the same time, she mentioned the reason for committing suicide. “Mere mentioning that the accused are responsible for committing suicide “, is not sufficient to attract the ingredients of abetment. Such being the facts, asking accused to face the trial, certainly would be considered as an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is needless to say that the Trial Court while considering the application for discharge must satisfy as to whether the material placed in the charge sheet are sufficient to record the conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again reiterated that the Trial Court shall not act as a post office between prosecution and investigating agency. Of course, the Trial Court while framing the charge must prima facie satisfy that the materials are sufficient to frame the charge. However, the said word “prima facie” would mean that, even if no other material is placed by the investigating agency, the conviction can be recorded based on the charge sheet materials. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 18.12.2023 in S.C No.126/2023 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, is hereby set aside. The petitioners are discharged for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Karanataka HC grants bail: States that prima facie evidence does not preclude petitioners from using the special authority granted to the Court

Blog , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Yunus Ahmed & Ors v. State of Karnataka

CASE NUMBER – CRL.P No. 4103 of 2024

DATED ON – 02.05.2024

QUORUM – MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

FACTS OF THE CASE

Chithradurga Rural Police registered a case in Crime No.133/2024 for offences under Sections 427, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 395, 448, 307, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code, on 02.04.2024 at about 8:30.p.m., based on the complainant lodged by B.H.Gowdru alias B. Facts further reveal that there was an incident that had occurred at about 2:30.p.m., on 02.04.2024, where under a Muslim Woman by name Farzana Khanum had a conversation with B.H.Gowdru alias B. At that juncture, about 18 to 20 persons from Muslim community people have forcibly ingressed to the compound wall of the house of B.H.Gowdru and took serious objection in having a conversation with Muslim Woman. It is also contended that the mob assaulted with hands and legs and stones and had a Neck Chain weiging of 55 grams, One Bracelet of 30 grams and Two Rings of 20 grams and Cash of Rs.40,000/- from his pocket were stolen by the mob and they also caused damage to the car bearing registration NO.KA-16-N-6574, which was parked there. In respect of the same incident, Smt. Farzana Khanum also lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Chitradurga against B.H.Gowdru alias B on 03.02.2024 at 6:00.a.m.

 

ISSUES

Whether bail petition can be granted to the accused(s)?

 

STATUTES

Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers the High Court and the Sessions Court with special powers regarding bail.

 

CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS

Reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition, Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that even assuming that entire allegations found in the complaint lodged by Sri. B.H.Gowdru to be accepted has gospel truth, no ingredients are attracted in so far as the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., prima-facie. He further contended that at any rate, since there is case and counter-case, the accused/petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further pointed out that having regard to the allegations levelled against the present petitioners in the incident, continuation of the accused/petitioners in Judicial custody no longer warranted and the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable conditions.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

High Court Government Pleader opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the offence alleged against the petitioners are heinous in nature and it stands proved, the petitioners are liable for the punishment of life imprisonment and therefore, gravity of the offence is on the higher side.  He further contended that the investigation is still in inception stage and if the bail is granted to the petitioners, then the investigation process could be hamper. He also pointed out that the release of the petitioners on bail may result in reputation of the offences and therefore, sought for release of bail.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court looked over the evidence. Upon reviewing the available evidence, it is acknowledged that an incident related to a small matter has occurred. The complainant’s allegations would unequivocally show that the mob, which included the petitioners, attacked the complainant with hands, legs, and stones, damaged the car, and took valuables out of the complainant’s possession. Given that the accused individuals are being held in custody as of April 4, 2024, the investigation could have advanced significantly and, in any case, any necessary custodial questioning could have been finished. From the petitioners’ side, there are no prior criminal convictions. The court stated that as could be seen from the complainant averments itself, even though the prosecution has invoked Section 307 of I.P.C., prima-facie materials would not disentitle petitioners, from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence allowing the bail petition.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Karnataka High Court Upholds Government’s Right to Remove Commission Chairman at Pleasure Under Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act

Blog, Karnataka High Court , , , ,

Karnataka High Court Upholds Government’s Right to Remove Commission Chairman at Pleasure Under Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act

Case title: MR. ABDUL AZEEM VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case no.: WRIT PETITION No.17396 OF 2023 (GM – RES)

Dated on: 28th May 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner claims to be a highly qualified citizen having M.A., LL.B. degree and retired as Assistant Police Commissioner and is known for his scientific investigation of high-profile criminal cases. The petitioner was also a Member of the Legislative Council and later in the year 2019 was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission for a period of three years (hereafter referred as the ‘first tenure’). The appointment was in terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner completes his first tenure on 15-10-2022. On completion of first tenure, an order comes to be passed continuing the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission for another term of three years, for it come to an end on 15-10-2025. When the petitioner was functioning as Chairman of the Commission, the men who man the Government changed. On 22-05-2023 a tippani emerges from the office of the Chief Minister which is communicated by the Chief Secretary to all the Departments. The communication was that the nominations made by the earlier Government will have to be annulled. In furtherance of the aforesaid communication/tippani a Notification comes to be issued on 22-05-2023 by which the continued nomination of the petitioner/2nd tenure is cancelled. The petitioner represents to the respondent/State on 24-05-2023 seeking to withdraw the said Notification. Owing to the representation, a Notification comes to be issued on 24-05-2023 withdrawing the Notification dated 22-05 2023 whereby the notification which cancelled the nomination of the petitioner for the second tenure comes to be withdrawn. The petitioner continues as Chairman of the Commission. The petitioner between the dates 22-05-2023 and 24-05-2023 had submitted a representation 23-05-2023 seeking consideration of the said representation to complete the term as a chairman for another 2 years and 5 months. When there was delay in consideration of the said representation, he had knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition by filing it on 05-08-2023. This Court initially issued notice to the respondents. During the pendency of the petition, it appears, the Government issues a Notification on 15-12-2023 cancelling the nomination of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission. Therefore, the petitioner continues to function as Chairman of the Commission. The State files an application seeking vacation of the interim order and the petitioner files rejoinder to the statement of objections and objections to the application seeking vacation of the interim order. The matter was heard. When it was pointed out that there is no challenge to the order dated 15.12.2023, an amendment comes to be filed by the petitioner which is directed to be taken along with the main matter. With the consent of parties, the matter was heard.

 

ISSUES

  1. whether the petitioner would have any right to continue in the nominated post, which was at all times subject to the pleasure of the State?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Constitution of India

 ARTICLE 226: Article 226(1) it states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purpose.

Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994

Section 3: Constitution of the Commission

This section outlines the formation and composition of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, including the appointment of the Chairman and other members.

Section 4: Term of Office and Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members

Sub-section (1): Specifies that the Chairman and other members shall hold office for a term of three years and that their tenure is subject to the pleasure of the Government. This implies that their term can be curtailed by the Government at any time.

Sub-section (2): Details other conditions of service for the Chairman and members, which may be prescribed by rules.

Section 5: Disqualifications for Office of Membership

This section lists specific grounds on which a member can be disqualified from holding office.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed tenure of three years on certain terms and conditions. It was continued for another period of three years on the same terms and conditions. Therefore, it becomes an appointment with fixed tenure and the order which withdraws or cancels the nomination or appointment as the case would be, is arbitrary and misuse of power of pleasure that is available to the State to remove any person who is nominated. The learned senior would seek to place reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court, all of which would bear consideration qua their relevance. n the rejoinder to the submission of the learned Advocate General, the learned senior counsel would submit that the State in its application seeking vacation of the interim order has indicated that there were several misconducts or illegalities on the part of the petitioner while discharging his duties as Chairman. Therefore, the removal of the petitioner would come within Section 5 of the Act and if it is under Section 5, it could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. It is her submission that no notice even issued and the petitioner is removed casting a stigma. She would seek quashment of the order.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned Advocate General would take this Court through the Act with particular reference to Section 4. The nomination of the petitioner even if it is for a term, the nomination is in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act itself indicates that the chairperson of the Commission will be functioning subject to the pleasure of the Government. Pleasure of the Government shall be that it would only be until further orders. He has been nominated and de-nominated now and no fault can be found with the order impugned cancelling the second tenure of the petitioner. He would also seek to place reliance upon several judgments, which would all bear consideration in the course of the order qua their relevance.

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

Though the Apex Court has close to five decades ago considered the effect of doctrine of pleasure and has rendered judgments from time to time, it would suffice if reference is made to the Constitution Bench judgment rendered in 2010, in the case of B.P. SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in terms of Section 4 of the Act supra. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 clearly indicates that the Chairman or other members shall hold office for a term of three years subject to pleasure of the Government. Therefore, the statute itself recognizes the right of the Government to tinker with the nomination prior to its expiry as it is subject to pleasure of the Government. There need not be any inference drawn whether it is a pleasure term or otherwise as the statute itself indicates that it is at the pleasure of the Government. The issue is, whether pleasure could be exercised at any time by the State in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act. Before embarking upon its consideration, I deem it appropriate to notice the line of law, both upholding the annulment of appointment / nominations and annulling such annulment of appointment / nominations by the Apex Court and this Court. The Apex Court holds that doctrine of pleasure however is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. The said judgment has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in B.K. UDAY KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. The Apex Court holds that nomination by itself from its nature is that the nominees do not have any vested right to continue as it is not akin to a fixed tenure as found in statutory appointments. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DR. DEEPTHI BHAVA. The Division Bench upturns the order of the learned single Judge holding that the nominees would hold office with the pleasure of the State and cannot be seen to project any right that is taken away when those nominations are cancelled. The Division Bench holds that principles of natural justice also do not apply to cancellation of nominations, unless it is shown that it is exercised in an arbitrary manner. The afore-quoted judgment in the case of KHUSRO QURAISHI was also concerning the nomination of Chairman of the Commission under the Act. The Division Bench holds that Section 4 itself uses the expression subject to pleasure of the Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is arbitrary on the part of the State to invoke the mandate of the statute. If the case of the petitioner is considered on the touch stone of the law laid down by the Apex Court and on the coalesce of the reasoning rendered therein what would unmistakably emerge is, that no right of the petitioner is taken away. The petitioner is a nominee who is nominated under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 itself indicates that it is at the pleasure of the State. It is exercised and he is de nominated. Such de-nomination of a nominee cannot be questioned on the ground that it is arbitrary. Much reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of B.P. SINGHAL. The same would not merit any acceptance, as the said judgment is considered by three Division Benches of this Court subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court and have all held that if the statute indicates that it is subject to the pleasure, a person who is nominated subject to such pleasure cannot make a hue and cry about cancellation of such nomination. The averment is that there are several misconducts and illegalities on the part of the petitioner. A statement in the application seeking vacation of interim order cannot generate a right in the petitioner, which the petitioner in law does not have. Even then, any such averment can never supersede the rigour or mandate of the statute. Taking cue from the aforesaid paragraph the learned senior counsel elaborates her submission by strenuously trying to bring in the case of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Act, to contend that if it is removal under Section 5, notice ought to have been issued. Section 5 deals with disqualification for office of membership. The reason for such disqualification is found in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 and if those clauses are to be invoked and the incumbent is to be removed, it is then a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be granted. The petitioner is not disqualified on any ground whatsoever. He has been de-nominated, and it is a de-nomination simpliciter exercising State’s right under Section 4 of the Act. This submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on this score also does not merit any acceptance. In the light of none of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner being acceptable, the petition deserves to be rejected. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order if any subsisting, shall stand dissolved. Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Karnataka HC grants bail; Imposed stringent conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation.

Blog , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Yunus Ahmed & Ors. v. State of Karnataka

CASE NUMBER – CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4103 OF 2024

DATED ON – 02.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice V. Srishananda

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Chithradurga Rural Police registered a case in Crime No.133/2024 for offences under Sections 427, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 395, 448, 307, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code, on 02.04.2024 at about 8:30.p.m., based on a complainant lodged by B.H.Gowdru alias B. There was an incident that had occurred at about 2:30.p.m., on 02.04.2024, where under a Muslim Woman by name Farzana Khanum had a conversation with B.H.Gowdru alias B. At that juncture, about 18 to 20 persons from Muslim community people have forcibly ingressed to the compound wall of the house of B.H.Gowdru and took serious objection in having a conversation with Muslim Woman. It is also contented that the mob assaulted with hands and legs and stones and had a Neck Chain weiging of 55 grams, One Bracelet of 30 grams and Two Rings of 20 grams and Cash of Rs.40,000/- from his pocket were stolen by the mob and they also caused damage to the car. In respect of the same incident, Smt. Farzana Khanum also lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Chitradurga against B.H.Gowdru alias B on 03.02.2024 at 6:00.a.m. Police are investigating both matters. In the process, petitioners who were accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 were arrested and sent to Judicial custody. The attempt made by the petitioners herein to obtain an order of grant of bail was turned down by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chithradurga. Thereafter, petitioners are before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.

 

ISSUE

Whether the Petitioners/Accused are entitled to bail given the severity of the charges against them.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONERS

The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that even assuming that entire allegations found in the complaint lodged by Sri. B.H.Gowdru is to be accepted as gospel truth, no ingredients are attracted in so far as the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., prima-facie. He further contended that at any rate, since there is case and counter-case, the accused/petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further pointed out that having regard to the allegations levelled against the present petitioners in the incident, continuation of the accused/petitioners in Judicial custody no longer warranted and the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable conditions.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the offence alleged against the petitioners are heinous in nature and it stands proved, the petitioners are liable for the punishment of life imprisonment and therefore, gravity of the offence is on the higher side. He further contended that the investigation is still in inception stage and if the bail is granted to the petitioners, then the investigation process could be hamper. He also pointed out that the release of the petitioners on bail may result in reputation of the offences and therefore, sought for release of bail

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that the complainant averments clearly depict that the mob including the petitioners attacked the complainant by hands and legs and also stones and damaged the car and robbed the precious items from the custody of the complainant. Since, the accused persons were already in custody on and from 04.04.2024, the investigation could have progressed a considerable extent and at any rate, custodial interrogation if any, would have been completed. There was no criminal antecedents insofar as the petitioners are concerned. They also stated that from the complainant averments itself, even though the prosecution has invoked Section 307 of I.P.C., prima-facie materials would not disentitle petitioners, from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that the Bail Petition is allowed certain to some conditions, those being: (a) Petitioners shall be enlarged on bail by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (b) Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly. (c) Petitioner shall mark their attendance before the investigation officer every alternative Sunday in between 10:00.a.m., to 2:00.p.m., till the charge sheet is filed. (d) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation process. (e) Petitioners shall not leave the Jurisdiction of the Chitradurga District without prior permission. And stated that violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

1 2