The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order of discharge. The court held the petition infructuous as the trial court had set aside the conviction of all accused in an appeal due to lack of evidence.
Discharged from liability as the petition was deemed infructuous.
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 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.359 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Sri. G. Bhaskar Kalaikar, Son of Annappa Kalaigar, Aged about 65 years, Retired Court Shirestedar, Gangolli Village, Kundapura Taluk. …PETITIONER
(By Shri. Maheshkiran Shetty, Advocate)
AND:
2
(By Shri. K.R. Keshava Murthy, State Public Prosecutor 1 for Respondent No.1
Shri. Vijaya Kumar A Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the order of discharge of accused No.2 to 5 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in S.C.No.144/2007 dated 4.9.2008.
3
This petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset
would submit that the subsequent development if taken into account, would render the present petition infructuous. In that, after the discharge of Accused Nos.2 to 5, the trial had commenced insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned, and after a full-fledged trial, the court below has convicted the accused. However, on an appeal before this Court, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court was set-aside insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned, on the finding that there was no acceptable evidence to establish the case of the prosecution and according to the instructions of the counsel for the respondent, the State has not chosen to file any appeal against the judgment of this Court dated 5.3.2014 in Crl.A.347/2009. Therefore, he would submit that even if the petition is to be allowed and the proceedings are to be
4
recommenced insofar as Accused Nos.2 to 5, the prosecution would have to rest on the very same evidence that was tendered in the case registered against Accused No.1 and would lead to
the same result and hence, the present petition is deemed to be infructuous.
Hence, the present petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision Petition is infructuous due to subsequent acquittal of accused after conviction of accused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. G. Bhaskar Kalaikar
State of Karnataka
Smt. Vani
Kishore
Srinivas Rao
Smt. Gayathri
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
