RAGHAVENDRA ALIAS VEERA RAGHAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner was the Accused No.2 before the Trial Court. The background of the proceedings is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner was said to be an employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'KSRTC' for brevity). It transpires that the witness who was examined as PW-5 before the Trial Court who was working as a Security Inspector along with on Kallegowda PW-1 who was an Assistant Security Inspector and another PW-2 G. Parameswarappa, formed an inspection squad of the KSRTC, Hassan Depot. On 9.7.1998 at about 7.25 a.m., went to Holenasipura bus stop and on a routine check of the travelling tickets and fress passes of the passengers, it was noticed that Accused No.1, was one of the passengers who did not produce a ticket and when the said officials demanded the ticket, Accused No.1 had claimed that he possessed a free travelling pass as he was an employee of the KSRTC. When he was asked to produce the free pass, he had refused to do so. Therefore, suspecting his bona fides, further enquiries were made and Accused No.1 had reluctantly produced the free pass which was marked as Exhibit P-1 at the trial. But, the free pass contained the name of Raghavendra, that is the present petitioner who is arrayed as Accused No.2, whereas Accused No.1 had stated that his name was Nagaraja and it is alleged that he was admitted to have purchased the free pass from the present petitioner about 18 months prior to the incident for a sum of Rs.800/- and after purchasing the same, he had affixed his passport size photograph on the pass of Raghavendra and had travelled in KSRTC buses, freely, on the strength of the said pass. Therefore, the said officials had taken the said Accused No.1 to Holenarasipura Police Station and proceedings were initiated in Crime No.100/1998, both against Accused No.1 and against Accused No.2. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed and a criminal case was registered in C.C.No.21/1999. Since the accused had remained absent for a long time, the cases were split up thereafter and transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Holenarasipura from the Court of the Additional CJM, Holenarasipura and registered as Case No.315/2005. In view of the cases having been split up and then having been clubbed later and re-registered, the charges were separately framed and the cases had been proceeded with independently, though at a later point of time, the evidence tendered in one case was adopted in the other. On the basis of the evidence tendered and the arguments canvassed, the following points were framed for consideration by the Trial Court:

(3.) THE above sequence of events would certainly demonstrate that the prosecution had not established that the pass had been sold in favour of Accused No.1 by Accused No.2. The fact that Accused No.1 was found in possession of the pass when it was being misused by him though the pass was admittedly issued to Accused No.2 by his employer, is patent. However, the circumstance that it has been subsequently renewed, would water down the theory of the prosecution that the pass had been sold by Accused No.2 to Accused No.1 and coupled with the circumstance that Accused No.2 claimed to have lost it, at the trial during his cross-examination, and it is indeed found that the loss claimed by the Accused No.2 is certainly subsequent to the renewal. This lends credence to his defence, which has been lightly negated by both the courts below. For otherwise, if once the pass had been sold by Accused No.2 in favour of Accused No.1 for a sum of money, the question of further renewal of the pass appears to be in serious doubt. It is only possible, if the same had been renewed by Accused No.2 and then had been lost by him, which was possibly being misused by Accused No.1. Having regard to this circumstance not being explained by the prosecution or there not being any material in support of the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the offence against Accused No.2 was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the petitioner would certainly have the benefit of doubt.