High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against a conviction under the Indian Arms Act, holding the FIR unsustainable because it was registered based on a seizure report instead of a valid complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Revision Petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and parties acquitted; bail bonds cancelled.
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.
R
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by N UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRIDHARA RAO
S/O. LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/OL STIRURU VILLAGE KUMBARAKODIGE KOPPA TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 126.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BALEHONNUR POLICE KOPPA TLAUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 026.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.03.2012/28.03.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPA IN C.C.NO.653/2002 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.11.2015 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.62/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKMAGALURU AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
ORDER
Brief facts of the case are as under:
was registered in Crime No.8/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 read with 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act. The police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
prosecution examined, in all, 6 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, the defence got marked Exs.D1 to D3 and also identified material object M.O.1. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.
petitioner that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are against the evidence and law on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
ought to have considered the earlier license which had by the brother of the petitioner to possess the said gun. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
(for short ‘HCGP’) justified the concurrent findings and submitted that, once the license is expired, they should have submitted for renewal or filed a necessary application for renewal before the competent Authority and obtained a necessary requisition in that regard. Unless the license is renewed or extended, it cannot be construed that the petitioner can possess the gun. Moreover the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner had a single-barrel gun without license. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court concurrently held that the petitioner was found guilty of the said offences. Hence, interference with the wellreasoned order passed by the Courts below may not be warranted. Making such submissions the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
judgments of the Courts below, the points which arise for my consideration are:
i) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the petitioner for the offences under Section 3 read with 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act sustainable?
ii) Whether the petitioner has made grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below for conviction?
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
Gowda, Manjunatha- Police Constable and another Head ConstableMedappa went to the house of the accused/petitioner. At that time, only females were present and the petitioner was not there at home. P.W.1 stated to have taken the single-barrel gun and asked the son of the petitioner about the license to keep the said gun. The son of the petitioner replied that the license was not there. Immediately, P.W.1 seized the gun and drew the mahazar which is marked as Ex.P1, and reported to the higher official as per Ex.P2.
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
complaint either oral or written. Now it is relevant to refer to the provision under Sections 154 and 157 of Cr. P.C which read thus;
“154. Information in cognizable cases —(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf: [Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that—
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1)shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.”
157. Procedure for investigation —(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:
Provided that—
[Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.]
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that subsection, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.”
provisions, makes it clear, that the registration of the First Information Report must be followed by the complaint and not based on seizure – Mahazar. In the present case, the FIR has been registered based on the seizure mahazar report, such FIR is held to be unsustainable under law, therefore, the proceedings subsequent to the said FIR are to be vitiated. However, the Trial Court and Appellate Court have failed to take note of the same and passed the impugned judgments which are required to be set – aside. It is needless to say that the Revisional Court can interfere with the findings of law not on facts.
NC: 2023:KHC:26037 CRL.RP No. 1349 of 2015
Point No.(i) - “Negative” Point No.(ii) - “Affirmative”
ORDER
(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 14.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012 passed in C.C.No.653/2002 by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa and the judgment and order dated 20.11.2015 in Crl.A.No.62/2012 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru, are set aside.
UN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the first information report was sustainably registered based on a seizure report rather than a valid complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C?
Whether the lower courts' failure to note the illegality in the registration of the FIR warrants setting aside the conviction?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sridhara Rao
State of Karnataka
S Rachaiyah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
