The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal appeal challenging an acquittal. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable, noting that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case regarding the identity of railway property and unauthorized possession, establishing no primary ingredient of the offence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.405 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Union of India by Inspector/RPF/South Western Railway, Bangalore Cantonment, Bangalore.
…APPELLANT
(By Shri. K.R. Keshavemurthy, State Public Prosecutor 1)
AND:
D.Rajesh, Son of Durgappaiah, Aged about 47 years, Resident of 1st Cross, Shimoga Town – 577 201.
…RESPONDENT
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the State Public Prosecutor for the State praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.11.2012 passed by
2
the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore in C.C.No.924/2006 - acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the RP(UP) Act, 1966.
The SPP/State prays that the above order may be set aside.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appeal coming on for orders on furnishing of
process fee on the appeal memo, it is noticed that the appeal itself may not be maintainable. From a plain perusal of the
judgment impugned, it is indicated that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case to establish the charges framed against the accused.
3
was missing, was not established with reference to the documentary evidence and apart from the oral testimony, the said evidence was not corroborated, which would enable the court to arrive at a finding and further, whether the Railway property was found in unauthorized possession of the accused was to be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The same has not been also forthcoming from the evidence on record. The allegations against the accused were that the accused no.2 had unauthorisedly permitted the accused no.1 to cut and remove eucalyptus trees belonging to the Railways, also could not be readily accepted as admittedly, they were employees engaged to safeguard the properties of the Railways and there is no explanation as to how the accused no.1 was in a position to cut and remove the Railway property, without the concerned being alerted and action being taken against them. Hence, it is futile to entertain this appeal and to consider the same at length, when on the basis of it, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case.
4
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE
nv
Union of India by Inspector/RPF/South Western Railway, Bangalore Cantonment
D.Rajesh
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
