Allowed

Akashavani Aliyass Nagarada S/O Ambammamurthi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023CRL.P/101668/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Karnataka quashed proceedings against the petitioner for gambling under the Karnataka Police Act. The court held that the only evidence was an inadmissible confession by a co-accused, lacking independent corroboration.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.19/2023 for an offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 are quashed.

Akashavani Aliyass Nagarada S/O Ambammamurthi Vs the… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13176 CRL.P No. 101668 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101668 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AKASHAVANI @ NAGARADA S/O AMBAMMAMURTHI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. 1^ST CROSS, NEAR OI, BSNL OFFICE, M.G. NAGAR, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583201.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NEEL P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KAMPLI POLICE STATION, BALLARI, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Digitally signedbyVIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.1712:57:42 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 27.01.2023 AND FURTHER PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.2/PETITIONER AS FILED BY KAMPLI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.0165/2022 WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.19/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT HOSAPETE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13176 CRL.P No. 101668 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the order of cognizance dated 27.01.2023 and further proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in CC No.19/2023 (in Kampli Police Station Crime No.165/2022) pending on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospete for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KP Act’, for short).

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.11.2022 one Sri. Suresh H Talavar, Police Inspector, received a credible information that some unknown persons were involved in mataka gambling in an open space. The Police Officer has raided the alleged spot and has drawn the recovery panchanama. At that time, the police found

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13176 CRL.P No. 101668 of 2023

¶27

accused No.1 playing mataka and seized mataka list, a ball pen and cash and on enquiry, the said accused No.1 named this petitioner with his cell number stating that he will give the mataka money to him. The Station House officer has sought permission of the judicial Magistrate for registering a case for the offence under Section 78(3) of the KP Act and investigate into the matter. The Magistrate by order dated 01.12.2022 by a detailed order, has permitted for registering a case and to investigate the matter. The police after permission registered a case in Crime No.165/2022 against accused No.1 and this petitioner/accused No.2 for offence under Section 78(3) of KP Act. The police after completing investigation filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and this petitioner/accused No.2 for an offence under Section 78(3) of KP Act. The Magistrate has taken cognizance by order dated 27.01.2023 against this petitioner and accused No.1 for an offence under Section 78(3) of KP Act and a case came to be registered in CC No.19/2023. The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings initiated against him.

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13176 CRL.P No. 101668 of 2023

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶30

would contend that, except the voluntary

¶31

statement/confession statement of accused No.1, there are no other material to show the involvement of this petitioner in the alleged offence. The said voluntary/confession statement of accused No.1 is not admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would contend that, on perusal of the charge sheet material, there are materials against this petitioner for the offence alleged against him. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶33

6. Having head the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

and the learned Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet material.

¶35

Accused No.1, at the time of raid by the Police Inspector of Kampli Police Station, has named this petitioner, as the person, who is receiving the Mataka patti.

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13176 CRL.P No. 101668 of 2023

¶37

¶38

The said statement made by accused No.1 is a confession statement which is not admissible under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Even the police witnesses have stated the same that accused No.1 revealed the name of this petitioner as the person who is receiving the mataka patti from accused No.1. Except that, there are no other material in the charge sheet papers to connect this petitioner with the alleged offence under Section 78 of the KP Act. Even though the entire charge sheet material is taken as established, it does not establish that this petitioner has committed the offence under Section 78(3) of the Act.

¶39

In view of the above, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No.19/2023 pending on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, are quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Kmv ct:bck

Akashavani Aliyass Nagarada S/O Ambammamurthi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akashavani Aliyass Nagarada S/O Ambammamurthi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs B R Lakshmana S/O Ramachandrappa

Mohammad Asif S/O. Abdul Rahim Chittewale Vs Rehana Begum @ Rehanabanu W/O Mohammad Asif Chittewale

Bahubali S/O Gangappa Teradal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Kasim Khaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sujata Vs Shri Veeranna

Parashuram S/O. Bhimasen Shingri Vs State