The High Court disposed of three criminal revision petitions challenging an order remanding conviction cases back to the Trial Court. The Court held that remand does not expose defence and matters must run their course, rejecting the petitions.
none
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, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200036 OF 2016 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200037 OF 2016 & CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200038 OF 2016
IN CRL.RP.200036/2016:
BETWEEN:
Ramappa Nayak S/o Late Chandrappa, Age: 54 years, Occupation: Working As Junior Engineer in Karnataka Urban Infra Structure Development & Finance Corporation, Raichur, Resident of Savitri Colony, Vasavi Nagar, Raichur.
… PETITIONER
(Shri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor
2
High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench. (Through Deodurga Police Station, District: Raichur)
… RESPONDENT
(Shri Sheshadri Jaishankar, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order of remand and direction to give the opportunity to led further evidence by taking summons to the concerned auditor by calling original audit report from the concerned authorities and even if the prosecution is willing to examine any other witnesses dated 09.12.2015 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Raichur, in Criminal Appeal No.34/2015.
IN CRL.RP.200037 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Ramappa Nayak S/o Late Chandrappa, Age: 54 years, Occupation: Working As Junior Engineer in Karnataka Urban Infra Structure Development & Finance Corporation, Raichur, Resident of Savitri Colony, Vasavi Nagar, Raichur.
… PETITIONER
(Shri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
3
AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench. (Through Deodurga Police Station, District: Raichur)
… RESPONDENT
(Shri Sheshadri Jaishankar, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order of remand and direction to give the opportunity to led further evidence by taking summons to the concerned auditor by calling original audit report from the concerned authorities and even if the prosecution is willing to examine any other witnesses dated 09.12.2015 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Raichur, in Criminal Appeal No.36/2015.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.200038 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Ramappa Nayak S/o Late Chandrappa, Age: 54 years, Occupation: Working As Junior Engineer in Karnataka Urban Infra Structure Development & Finance Corporation, Raichur, Resident of Savitri Colony, Vasavi Nagar, Raichur.
… PETITIONER
4
(Shri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
AND: The State of Karnataka Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench. (Through Deodurga Police Station, District: Raichur) … RESPONDENT
(Shri Sheshadri Jaishankar, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order of remand and direction to give the opportunity to led further evidence by taking summons to the concerned auditor by calling original audit report from the concerned authorities and even if the prosecution is willing to examine any other witnesses dated 09.12.2015 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Raichur, in Criminal Appeal No.37/2015.
The petitions coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
5
O R D E R
These three petitions are disposed of by this common order.
separate judgments of the Trial Court convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity).
The petitioner had filed appeals against the three separate judgments having been pronounced. It was pointed out by the petitioner who was the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court,
that the cases were disposed of in a tearing hurry. In that, the evidence was tendered in only one of the cases, whereas the said evidence was adopted in two other cases and the prosecution was also not afforded sufficient time to field other witnesses whom they sought to examine as witnesses; for instance, the auditor who had audited the accounts in discovering the misappropriation allegedly made by the present petitioner. It is in that background that the Lower Appellate Court has opined that it is a fit case which ought
6
to be adjudicated at length and merely because the cases were of some vintage, there was no justification in rushing through the proceedings and accordingly, has set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and has remanded the matter to be clubbed together and if necessary, to accept evidence as common evidence in all the three cases. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present petitions.
contend that since the matter has run through the course of a trial as well as an appeal, the very defence of the petitioner is exposed and it is quite possible that the prosecution would now seek to tie up the loose ends and try to improve the case against the accused. This may be inevitable. In order to ensure that there is complete justice, the Lower Appellate Court, at the instance of the petitioner himself having allowed his appeals and having remanded the matter, these consequently cannot be grounds to quash the entire proceedings.
7
The matters would have to run their course. Accordingly, there is
no merit in these petitions and they are rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside an order remanding three convergence cases to the Trial Court after the High Court reversed the conviction in those appeals.
Whether a remand of cases where evidence may be re-taken exposes the defence or prejudices the accused, justifying quashing the entire proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramappa Nayak
The State of Karnataka
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
