STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHASHI POOJARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed by the State praying this Court to set aside the Order dtd. 1/2/2020 passed in S.C. No.91/2019 and S.C. No.78/2017 respectively on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, rejecting the applications filed by the prosecution and consequently allow the applications filed by the prosecution and pass such other order deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case are that, Mangaluru East [Kadri] Police have registered a case in Crime No. 132/2015 against accused Nos.1 to 6 for offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 395 r/w 149 of IPC. On completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons and subsequently, the same is numbered as C.C. No.3466/2015. Later, the case is made over for disposal in accordance with law and the same is numbered as S.C. No.78/2017. Later the case is split up against accused No.2 [respondent in Crl.P. No.5048/2020] and numbered as C.C. No. 129/2017 and committed to the District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. C.C. No.129/2017 against accused No.2 also made over for disposal in accordance with law in S.C. No.91/2019.

(3.) Learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that the main legislative intent to Sec. 10 of the KCOC Act is very much clear that the trial in any Special Court shall have precedence over the trial of any other case, against the accused in any other Court and until the trial is concluded in preferences such other case, the same shall remain in abeyance. Hence, the reading of the above provision is clear that the said provision is not a discretionary but is mandatory is not considered by the trial Court and without assigning any reasons, has rejected the applications. The order passed by the trial Court is passed against Sec. 10 of the KCOC Act and the very conclusion of the trial Court that Sec. 10 of the KCOC Act is not applicable in the present case is erroneous and it requires interference by this Court.