0

Proclamation order by Trial Judge quashed by Karnataka HC due to procedural irregularities; Emphasizes need for accused to join investigation.

CASE TITLE – Shridhar K. Pujar v. State of Karnataka

CASE NUMBER – CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2380 OF 2024, CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2916 OF 2024 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2925 OF 2024

DATED ON – 02.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice V. Srishananda

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioner is a Police Officer of D.S.P rank. Allegations are leveled against him that he was involved in interfering with the true course of justice inasmuch as he had interfered with the investigation of Crime Nos.91/2020 and 287/2020. In respect of those crimes when the investigation was under process, the petitioner was said to have been found in the company of the Lawyer who represented the accused therein. He was required to accompany the Police personnel who had spotted him in the car. At that juncture, he escaped from the clutches and he was not available to the Police was the allegation. Based on the said incident, a case came to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.19/2024 and Crime No.1/2024 and attempts were made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of Anticipatory Bail were rejected. In Criminal Petition Nos. 2380/2024 and 2916/2024 the petitioner was seeking to quash the two criminal cases registered in Crime Nos.19/2024 and 1/2024 against him. The attempts made by the petitioner to submit himself for the process of law by seeking an order of grant of anticipatory bail was turned down by the learned District & Session Judge and a Coordinate Bench of same High Court of Karnataka.

 

ISSUES

Whether the criminal cases (Crime Nos. 19/2024 and 1/2024) against the D.S.P Petitioner/Accused can be quashed, given the allegations of his interference in investigations.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka noted that it is a settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the allegations leveled against him stands proved before the court of law beyond all reasonable doubts. Whether at all the allegations leveled against the petitioner is true or not cannot be decided by them at this stage, as the case against the petitioner is still in the inception stage. And also stated that the fact remains that unless the petitioner joins the investigation and cooperates with pending investigation in respect of Crime No.19/2024 and crime No.1/2024 no useful purpose would be served by simply keeping the investigation pending, and held that an arrangement needs to be made which would strike a harmonious balance between the rights of the petitioner and the need of the prosecution. And as to the Appeal by the Petitioner to quash the FIR against him, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka stated that generally an FIR cannot be quashed unless it has acted prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and by the allegation found in the complaint, no case could made out against the accused/petitioner, and in the case on hand, there was no special reason for the Court to quash the FIR itself. They then proceeded to allow Criminal Petition No. 2925/2024 stating that the Order of proclamation passed by the learned Trial Judge as against the petitioner is quashed, on account of procedural irregularities. And Criminal Petition Nos.2380/2024 and 2916/2024 were Disposed Of with some of the conditions being that the Petitioner shall completely cooperate with the Investigation Agency, and on conclusion of the custodial investigation, the petitioner shall be let free by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer. Further, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer as and when called and shall not in any way tamper the prosecution evidence.

 

“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

The FSL report cannot be read as evidence when samples aren’t drawn in compliance with S.52A: Supreme Court

Case Title : Mohammed Khalid and another versus The state of Telangana

Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s).1610 of 2023

Decided on: 10th November,2022.

Quorum: Judge Mehta

Facts of the case:

Mr.M.Srinavasa Rao, Inspector of Police received an information on 8th May,2009 regarding that the transportation of ganja by two persons from Sangareddy to Hyderabad in a Toyota Qualis Vehicle. It is alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing 80kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized. Both the persons were arrested and interrogated at the spot itself. Three samples weighing about 50 grams were drawn from each bundle and remaining muddamal ganja. Another sample was sent for investigation. After that charge sheet has filed on them. They sent for an appeal to high court. First time high court rejects and then after asking again for an appeal they will reconsider it. And they reinvestigate the case. Three samples were changed into 7 samples. That samples does not have any seals or identification marks .So they will not consider it as an evidence because it is not in a correct way.

Legal Provisions:

Section 20(b) of NDPS Act it deals with Narcotic drugs.

Section 313 of CrPC it deals that it questions the accused.

Section 374(2) of CrPC it deals that high court rejects judgement of trial court.

 Contentions:

They go to appeal in high court and the evidences which are produced by police are not under safe custody. Both the accused were caught red handed in the vehicle with drugs. When they investigated and they said that they are supplying for two persons.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

It passed to high court of state of Telangana on 10th November,2022.Trial court sentenced that each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period 10 years and to pay fine of 1 lakh each. The evidences are reconsidered. But the evidences are not sealed by the trail court. They didn’t even took permission from the court regarding changing the evidences as 3 bags to 7 bags. The evidences are not in safe custody. So they cannot consider these evidences for the case. Affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge under Section 8(c)read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. They are in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

“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 Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace

Click here to view judgement