State of Karnataka challenged acquittals in five criminal cases involving misappropriation allegations against the respondent Society Secretary. The Sessions Court dismissed the State's appeal. This Court held the Sessions Court appeal was not maintainable and found no grounds for revisional interference, dismissing the petitions.
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.
CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO. 18 OF 2013
C/W CRL.R.P. NOS.17 OF 2013, 25 OF 2013, 19 OF 2013 & 20 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UDUPI POLICE.
…PETITIONER (COMMON)
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka
M. GIRIJA W/O K. NARAYANA R/O BEHIND SUJATHA HOTEL THOTTAM, KODAVOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK - 576 101.
…RESPONDENT (COMMON) (BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADV.)
CRL.RP NO.18/2013 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED:26.4.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL.C.J., AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.82/1995 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409 AND 477A R/W 34 OF IPC AND ORDER DATED:30.8.12 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.13/2008.
CRL.RP NO.17/2013 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED:26.4.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL.C.J., AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.87/1995 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE
CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS
P/U/S 409 AND 477A R/W 34 OF IPC AND ORDER DATED:30.8.12 PASSED BY THE S.J., UDUPI DIST., UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.114/2007 DISMISSING THE ABOVE CRL.A FILED BY THE PETR.
CRL.RP NO.25/2013 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED:26.4.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL.C.J. AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.88/1995 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409 AND 477A R/W 34 OF IPC AND THE ORDER DATED:30.8.12 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DIST., AT UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.15/2008 DISMISSING THE ABOVE CRL.A. FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
CRL.RP NO.19/2013 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED:26.4.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL.C.J., AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.86/1995 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409 AND 477A R/W 34 OF IPC AND ORDER DATED:30.8.12 PASSED BY THE S.J., UDUPI DIST., UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.14/2008 DISMISSING THE ABOVE CRL.A FILED BY THE PETR.
CRL.RP NO.20/2013 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED:26.4.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL.C.J., AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.83/1995 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409 AND 477A R/W 34 OF IPC AND ORDER DATED:30.8.12 PASSED BY THE S.J., UDUPI DIST., UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.30/2008 DISMISSING THE ABOVE CRL.A FILED BY THE PETR.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS
COMMON ORDER
Having regard to the similitude of the facts and question of law involved in these criminal revision petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS
accounts of the Society. The Trial Court in all the aforesaid five cases had acquitted the respondent for the alleged offences and as against the judgment and order of acquittal, the petitionerState had preferred five separate appeals before the Court of Session Judge in Crl.A.No.13/2018, 30/2008, 14/2008, 114/2007 and 15/2007. The appellate Court had dismissed the said appeals and being aggrieved by the same, the State is before this Court in these criminal revision petitions.
for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the for the respondent.
CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS
handed over the investigation to ASI Bhaskar. PW.8 is the person, who had compared the disputed signatures of the parties and given opinion as per Ex.P41. PW.9 and 10 are the Investigating Officers who had conducted investigation and subsequently filed charge sheet.
CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS
of Cr.P.C., as against the judgment and order or acquittal passed by the Trial Court and therefore, all the appeals filed by the petitioner-State against the judgment and order of acquittal before the Appellate Court were not at all maintainable. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal which have been challenged by the State in these revision petitions.
Accordingly, revision petitions are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NMS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. when the State filed an appeal in the Sessions Court against an order of acquittal which is not maintainable under Section
Whether the appellate court's dismissal of the State's appeal preserves the acquittal sufficiently to preclude High Court revisional interference?
7 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Karnataka by Udupi Police
M. Girija
S Vishwa JITH Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
