Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. M Girija

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2023CRL.RP/25/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed criminal revision petitions filed by the State challenging acquittals in five cases involving misappropriation. The Court held that the Appeals filed by the State before the Sessions Court were not maintainable, directing the State to file appeals under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against acquittals.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions dismissed; State directed to file appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. if aggrieved by acquittal.

The State of Karnataka Vs M Girija — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRL.R.P. NO. 18 OF 2013

¶7

C/W CRL.R.P. NOS.17 OF 2013, 25 OF 2013, 19 OF 2013 & 20 OF 2013

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UDUPI POLICE.

¶10

…PETITIONER (COMMON)

¶11

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

M. GIRIJA W/O K. NARAYANA R/O BEHIND SUJATHA HOTEL THOTTAM, KODAVOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK - 576 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (COMMON) (BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADV.)

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

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.

¶29

The respondent herein was working as a Secretary of Harijan Fisher Women Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Thottam Kodavoor and it is alleged that for the period from 1983-84 to 1986-87, she had misappropriated a total sum of Rs.29,068.47 paise and in this background five separate criminal complaints were lodged by one Sri Thimmayya, Inspector of Co-operative Society, Udupi, based on which criminal cases were registered against the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 477(A) of IPC and accordingly, she was tried for the said offences in C.C.No.82/1995, 83/1995, 86/1995, 87/1995 and 88/1995 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi. The allegation of the prosecution against the respondent was that she being the Secretary of the Society was looking after purchase and sale of ration articles and she had indulged in misappropriation of articles and thereafter she was held responsible for the same by the Auditor, who audited the

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS

¶32

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.

¶33

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader

¶34

for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the for the respondent.

¶35

PW.1-Thimmayya was examined by the prosecution with regard to filing of complaint and he had no personal knowledge about misappropriation alleged against the respondent. PWs.2, 3 and 4 who are office bearers of the Society have pleaded ignorance about misappropriation said to have been done by the respondent. PW.5 has spoken about the seizure of the books relating to the Society whereas PW.6 is the retired audit reporter who had audited the accounts of the Society and submitted a audit report as per Exs.P24. PW.7 is the PSI of Malpe Police Station, who had registered FIR and

¶36

¶37

CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS

¶38

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.

¶39

From the over all appreciation of evidence of these witnesses, the Trial Court had recorded a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the respondent - accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the appeals filed by the State Government, the Sessions Court had confirmed the said judgment and order of acquittal and dismissed the said appeals. The Courts below having recorded concurrent findings in the present cases have acquitted the respondent for the alleged offences. The learned High Court Government Pleader has failed to point out that the findings recorded by the Courts below are either illegal or perverse in nature which needs interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional power.

¶40

In addition to the same, as against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State could not have maintained an appeal before the Sessions Court. The State ought to have filed appeal before this Court under Section 378

¶41

¶42

CRL.RP No. 18 of 2013 & OTHERS

¶43

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.

¶44

Accordingly, revision petitions are dismissed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

NMS

The State of Karnataka v. M Girija

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. M Girija

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeeva Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Venkataramu Vs State of Karnataka

Anwar Mohammed Vs Ayesha Begum

The State of Karnataka Vs M. Girija

The State of Karnataka Vs M. Girija

The State of Karnataka Vs M. Girija