State's revision against discharge of accused No.7 in a house-trespass and theft case. The respondent could not be traced, his surety was dead, and no stolen articles were recovered from him or identified. Finding no nexus between the accused and the stolen property, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:14858 CRL.RP No. 1469 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1469 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR, MANIPAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka
MOODASWAMY, SON OF VEERA PANDI THEWAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O THEKKUPANAVADALI, PANAVADALISATRAM POST, SHANKARKOYIL TALUK, THIRUNALVEL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 627 953.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN S.C.NO.20/2015, THEREBY DISCHARGING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 454, 380 AND 413 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.P.
NC: 2024:KHC:14858 CRL.RP No. 1469 of 2016
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. M.R. Patil, learned HCGP for the petitioner/State.
No.7, against the order of the Sessions Court, whereby a discharge application filed by the respondent came to be allowed and he was discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 413 of I.P.C.
that there was no recovery made from the accused No.7. The stolen articles were not identified by the complainant.
Therefore, the nexus between the stolen property and the respondent is not shown in the charge sheet papers.
Sd/JUDGE
PTM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition against discharge of accused No.7 for offences under Sections 454, 380 and 413 IPC deserved admission despite failure to trace the respondent.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Karnataka by Police Inspector, Manipal Police Station, represented by State Public Prosecutor
Moodaswamy
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
