The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition against conviction for obstruction of police duty, confirming lower court orders but granting set-off for judicial custody period.
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed; period of judicial custody set off against imposed sentence.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.178 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
JEEVAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. JAYANANDA PUJARI, R/O. CHOWDAHALLI, BASAVANAGAR PLOT, IRVATHOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574104. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABDULLA T I – HEGDE ASSOCIATES)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARKALA CIRCLE, KARKALA, PIN – 574104, REPRESENTED BY ITS, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA IN C.C.NO.205/2012 DATED 24.08.2013 AS CONFIRMED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.103/2013, DATED: 23.12.2017.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction and to set-aside the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2013 passed in C.C.No.205/2012 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, confirmed by the judgment and order dated 23.12.2017 passed in Crl.A.103/2013 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi.
3
Gowda and CPC 1164 Sri.Praveen of Karkala Police Station, had gone to arrest the revision petitioner-accused under non-bailable warrant. The accused has caused obstruction in discharge of their duty. Thereby, he has committed the offence. On basis of the complaint, Police have registered the case at Crime No.17/2012. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC.
4
jurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, obstruct the concurrent factual finding. It is not for the revisional Court to reanalyze or reinterpret the evidence on record. It is well established principle of law that the revision Court will not interfere even if the wrong order is passed by the Court having jurisdiction, in the absence of jurisdictional error.
5
i.e., 24.08.2013 (till the date of judgment). Thus, he was in judicial custody for 16 months.
Now both the Courts have passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC, but the Courts below have not given set-off in respect of the period undergone by the accused in the judicial custody and further submits that the order of conviction passed by the Courts below may be confirmed and the sentence imposed by both the Courts below may be given set-off as the accused was in judicial custody for more than 15 months.
the date of arrest till the date of judgment, which is for more than 15 months. The sentence imposed by the Courts below is only for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. As submitted by learned HCGP there are no grounds to setaside the orders passed by the Courts below, but the only point to be considered is that whether set - off can be given in respect of the period during which the accused was in judicial custody. Since the
6
accused was already in judicial custody for more than 15 months, the same will be given set-off against the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is dismissed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2013 passed in C.C.No.205/2012 by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, and the judgment and order dated 23.12.2017 passed in Crl.A.103/2013 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi, are confirmed.
ii. The period of detention undergone by the revision petitioner-accused before the date of conviction
shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether set-off should be granted for the period of detention undergone by the accused in judicial custody against the sentence imposed.
Whether the conviction and sentence passed by lower courts for obstruction of police duty should be set aside or confirmed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jeevan Kumar
State of Karnataka
Ashok G. Nijagannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
