Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Sri.H.v.Krishnaswamy

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2020CRL.RP/543/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an interlocutory order under Section 397 Cr.P.C. holding it barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. as the challenged order was interlocutory. The court found no reason to interfere with the trial judge's rejection of the prosecution's application.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable against an interlocutory order barred by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

State of Karnataka Vs Sri.H.v.Krishnaswamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.543/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

State of Karnataka, Represented by Lokayukta Police, Kolar – 563 101.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri.Venkatesh S Arbatti, Spl.PP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Sri. H.V. Krishnaswamy, Aged about 65 years, Son of H.V. Venkataramanappa, Residing at 1062, 7^th Main, 3^rd Stage, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034. ...Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. Shankar P. Hegde, Advocate)

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Kolar in Spl.C. (Corruption) 4/2010.

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard learned Spl.P.P. for petitioner and learned

¶19

counsel for respondent.

¶20

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against an interlocutory order passed by the trial Court.

¶21

The impugned order is passed on the application filed by the petitioner, namely, the State of Karnataka under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. By the said application, the prosecution sought for reframing certain questions put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. This application has been rejected by the trial Judge mainly on the ground that the prosecution has not brought on record necessary evidence which could have been put to the accused seeking his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

¶23

4. The impugned order being interlocutory in

¶24

nature, in my view, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in view of the bar contained in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

Learned Spl.P.P. for petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LATU MAHTO AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2008) 8 SCC 395 ; RAJ KUMAR SINGH ALIAS RAJU ALIAS BATYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 3150 and RANJAN DWIVEDI & ANOTHER Vs. C.B.I. reported in 2007 SCC ONLINE DELHI 1524. The submission of the learned Spl.P.P. for petitioner

¶26

that the prosecution intends to bring on record necessary material regarding compliance of statutory requirements in terms of the explanation to Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be allowed. Compliance of statutory requirements is a question of law, which cannot be the subject matter of evidence which could be put to the accused in his examination under Section 313

¶27

¶28

of Cr.P.C. Either way, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, petition is

¶29

dismissed .

¶30

Since the petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the decisions relied on by the learned Spl.P.P. are not considered.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32