Dismissed

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri v. the Central Bureau of Investigation

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024CRL.P/101650/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An advocate facing trial in eleven CBI cases for fraudulent motor-accident claims sought lenient sentencing on pleading guilty under Section 229 CrPC, citing parity with co-accused. The High Court held the qualified plea required proceeding with trial and dismissed all petitions.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitions and the applications under Section 229 CrPC were rejected.

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri Vs the Central Bureau of… — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101646 OF 2023

¶6

C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101648 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101649 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101650 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101651 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101652 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101654 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101655 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101657 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101659 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101661 OF 2023

¶7

IN CRL. P No. 101646/2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶10

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO.7/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶21

SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C.

¶22

IN CRL. P No. 101648/2023

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD,NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032 THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶29

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO.13/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C

¶31

IN CRL. P No. 101649/2023

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶36

R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶37

…PETITIONER

¶38

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶41

…RESPONDENT

¶42

(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶43

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO.11/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C

¶44

IN CRL. P No. 101650/2023

¶45

BETWEEN:

¶46

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶47

…PETITIONER

¶48

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶49

AND:

¶50

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶53

NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶54

…RESPONDENT

¶55

(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D. GUNDA, ADVOCATE)

¶56

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO.6/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C

¶57

IN CRL. P No. 101651/2023

¶58

BETWEEN:

¶59

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶60

…PETITIONER

¶61

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶62

AND:

¶63

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, R/BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032 THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶64

…RESPONDENT

¶65

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶66

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO. 15/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES, DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 409, 420, 468,

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶69

471, R/W SEC. 120B OF THE IPC 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/SEC. 229 OF CR.P.C.

¶70

IN CRL. P No. 101652/2023

¶71

BETWEEN:

¶72

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶73

…PETITIONER

¶74

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶75

AND:

¶76

THE CENTRAL BUREAU ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶77

…RESPONDENT

¶78

(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶79

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO.5/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C

¶80

IN CRL. P No. 101654/2023

¶81

BETWEEN:

¶82

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS,

¶83

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶85

GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶86

…PETITIONER

¶87

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶88

AND:

¶89

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, R/BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032 THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶90

…RESPONDENT

¶91

(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶92

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO. 12/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES, DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 409, 420, 468, 471, R/W SEC. 120B OF THE IPC 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/SEC. 229 OF CR.P.C.

¶93

IN CRL. P No. 101655/2023

¶94

BETWEEN:

¶95

SHRI GANESH S/O. MUNIGERAPPA ANNIGERI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶96

…PETITIONER

¶97

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶98

AND:

¶99

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032

¶100

¶101

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶102

THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶103

…RESPONDENT

¶104

(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶105

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO.8/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C.

¶106

IN CRL. P No. 101657/2023

¶107

BETWEEN:

¶108

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶109

…PETITIONER

¶110

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶111

AND:

¶112

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶113

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶114

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO

¶115

¶116

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶117

FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C.

¶118

IN CRL. P No. 101659/2023

¶119

BETWEEN:

¶120

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶121

…PETITIONER

¶122

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶123

AND:

¶124

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶125

…RESPONDENT

¶126

(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶127

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN CBI CC NO.4/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C

¶128

IN CRL. P No. 101661/2023

¶129

BETWEEN:

¶130

SHRI GANESH S/O. MANIGERAPPA ANNIGERI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. ANNIGERI FARMS, GUDDADA ROAD, NAVALUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

¶131

…PETITIONER

¶132

¶133

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶134

(BY SRI. K L PATIL AND S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATES)

¶135

AND:

¶136

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, BENGALURU.

¶137

…RESPONDENT

¶138

(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶139

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN SPL CBI CC NO.3/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI AND LOKAYUKTA CASES DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 468, 471 R/W 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 13(1)(c) AND (d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 229 OF CR.P.C

¶140

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶141

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶142

ORAL ORDER

¶143

These petitions are filed by the petitioner –accused No.4 praying to quash the orders dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI and Lokayukta Cases, Dharwad registered for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 470 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as to “IPC” for brevity) and

¶144

10 -

¶145

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶146

Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as to “P.C. Act” for brevity) and allow an application filed under Section 229 of Cr.P.C.

¶147

The said orders dated 13.04.2023 are passed on application filed by the petitioner –accused No.4 under Section 229 of Cr.P.C in Spl.CBI C.C.Nos. 3/2017, 4/2017, 5/2017, 6/2017, 7/2017, 8/2017, 11/2017, 12/2017, 13/2017, 14/2017 and 15/2017 wherein applications filed under Section 229 of Cr.P.C have been rejected.

¶148

The petitioner –accused No.4 is practicing advocate facing trail for the aforesaid offences in all said cases. The petitioner –accused No.4 has filed application under Section 229 of Cr.P.C praying to take lenient view and impose minimum punishment of penalty and sentence till rising of the Court. The said application has been contested by the respondent by filing objections. The Special Court after hearing parties has rejected the

¶149

11 -

¶150

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶151

application filed by the petitioner in all cases. The said orders have been challenged in these present petitions.

¶152

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner –

¶153

accused No.4 and learned Spl.P.P for the respondent.

¶154

Learned counsel for the petitioner –accused No.4 would contend that petitioner is practicing advocate and aged more than 48 years and suffering from perianal abscess, admitted to SDM Hospital from 27.07.2017 and undergone operation for legation of intersphincteric fistula tract with fistulectomy and again suffered recurrent of the perianal abscess and again admitted to Saifee Hospital Mumbai from 20.09.2018 to 21.09.2018 and again underwent surgery. He has got old aged parents and he is the only bread earner and it is not possible for him to attend the Court. Therefore, he prayed for imposing minimum punishment of penalty till rising of the Court. He contends that accused Nos. 7 to 12 have also pleaded guilty and imposed minimum sentence on them and therefore, on the ground of parity the petitioner –accused

¶155

12 -

¶156

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶157

No.4 is also entitled similar order. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State

¶158

of Punjab Vs Prem Sagar & ORs¹ wherein it is held as under

¶159

Whether the court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.

¶160

While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role, The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

¶161

There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.

¶162

A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is the

¶163

1 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 261

¶164

13 -

¶165

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶166

ultimate goal of any justice delivery system. The Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on sentence, as would appear from Sub-section (2) of Section 235, Sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has laid down certain principles. The said provisions lay down the principle that the court in awarding the sentence must take into consideration a large number of relevant factors; sociological backdrop of the accused being one of them.

¶167

Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon the court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It would depend upon the circumstance in which the crime has been committed and his mental state. Age of the accused is also relevant.

¶168

What would be the effect of the sentencing on the society is a question which has been left unanswered by the legislature. The Superior Court have come across a large number of cases which go to show anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing. Whereas the quantum of punishment for commission of a similar type of offence varies from minimum to maximum, even where same sentence is imposed, the principles applied are found to be different. Similar discrepancies have been notices in regard to imposition of fine.

¶169

14 -

¶170

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶171

In a recent decision in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 2 SCC 359], this Court opined:

¶172

The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of

¶173

15 -

¶174

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶175

weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

¶176

Relying upon the decision of this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471], this Court furthermore held that it was the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc”

¶177

Placing reliance on the said decision he contends that

¶178

the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. On these grounds he prayed to allow all petitions and consequently prayed to allow the application filed by the petitioner – accused No.4 under Section 229 of Cr.P.C.

¶179

Learned Spl.P.P for the respondent would contend that the petitioner –accused No-4 has not pleaded any parity with the order passed on applications of accused Nos.7 to 12 in his application. He contends that accused Nos.7 to 12 are poor innocent persons and the trial Court passed orders on their applications considering

¶180

16 -

¶181

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶182

the fact that they are rustic village people, they have signed the petition as per instruction of this petitioner – accused No.4 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given benefit of orders of sentence of accused Nos.7 to 12. He contends that offences alleged against petitioner are heinous offences against the society and one of the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. The application filed by the petitioner –accused No.4 pleading guilty is qualified, under such circumstances the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. The ailment which the petitioner has put forth is not serious ailment and therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency in sentence. He further contends that the petitioner cannot file application with pre condition of pleading guilty and requesting to impose minimum sentence till rising of the Court. It is the discretion of the trial Court to impose sentence after accepting plea of guilty. The trial Court considering all these aspects has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 229 of Cr.P.C by the

¶183

17 -

¶184

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶185

petitioner –accused No.4. With these, he prayed for dismissal of all petitions.

¶186

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶187

perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record.

¶188

It is not in dispute that the trial Court has accepted plea of guilty of accused Nos.7 to 12 and imposed minimum sentence of till rising of the Court on them. In the application, the petitioner –accused No.4 has not sought any similar order praying parity. Accused Nos.7 to 12 are rustic village people, they have signed the petitions as claimants as per instruction of this petitioner – accused No.4 and considering the said aspect the trial Court has imposed minimum sentence of till raising of the Court. The petitioner is practicing advocate who prepared claim petitions, got passed awards in permanent LokAdalath and got transferred the award amount to his account. The allegations against this petitioner –accused No.4 are serious and one of the offence alleged is Section

¶189

18 -

¶190

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶191

409 of IPC wherein maximum sentence is imprisonment for life. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering imposing of 06 months sentence of imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC has observed that “Court cannot take lenient view in such type of cases in awarding sentence on ground of sympathy or delay, public accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption –Sympathy not called for, in imposing sentence”. The said decisions are referred by the Trial Court in para No.14 of the impugned order.

¶192

The application filed by the petitioner –accused No.4 is under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. In the applications filed under Section 229 of Cr.P.C, the accused can plead guilty, the Court has to record the plea and convict him. The imposing of sentence is the discretion of the Court. In the case on hand the petitioner –accused No.4 in his application has sought imposing of minimum punishment of imprisonment till rising of the Court. Therefore, the said application filed under Section 229 of Cr.P.C pleading

¶193

19 -

¶194

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶195

guilty is qualified and therefore, the Court under such circumstances has to proceed with trial. If the plea of the petitioner –accused No.4 is accepted and if he is imposed minimum sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court in such heinous offences will give wrong signal to the society.

¶196

The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner –accused No.4 is regarding imposing of sentence after order of conviction and therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Even in the said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. In the present case there is serious allegation of playing fraud and obtaining MVC awards before permanent Lok–Adalath by implanting the fake and fictitious persons and filing the

¶197

20 -

¶198

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13771 CRL.P No. 101646 of 2023 C/W OTHER TEN MATTERS

¶199

fake MVC cases. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the charge and alleged role of the petitioner –accused

¶200

No.4 being an advocate, no lenience can be taken. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner –accused No.4 by the impugned order.

¶201

There are no grounds to allow petitions and application filed under Section 229 of Cr.P.C.

¶202

In the result petitions are dismissed.

¶203

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶204

DSP CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri v. the Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri v. the Central Bureau of Investigation

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

Mandarapu Mandhava Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhakar @ Prabhu S/O. Yankappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mandarapu Madhava Rao S/O. Venkatappaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Basavanni Alias Basu S/O Siddappa Naik, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Prakash S/O Dundappa Valakoti Vs the State of Karnataka