ABDUL KHADAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are heard and disposed of at the admission stage, in order to avoid any kind of delay in the prosecution of the petitioner, if it is so warranted.

(2.) IT is the grievance of the petitioner in all these cases that the prosecution has sought to allege certain offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 302,307,326,435,201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ' the IPC' for brevity) read with Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Properties Act,1981 and under Sections 3,10,11,13,16,17,18,19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on the suo motu complaint of the Madivala Police Station against several persons. Initially, the present petitioner was treated as a witness for the prosecution. It is only later that he has been arraigned as accused no.29.

(3.) HOWEVER, since this court is not in a position to call for the records to examine the same, in either negating the petitioner's case or in entertaining the petitions and since that would result in the proceedings before the court below being delayed, it would be simpler for the court below to state briefly the reasons as to why the petitioner's case for discharge cannot be considered. Since the petitioner claims that he has already been heard on discharge by the court below he may now be permitted to place any written application in this regard. And the petitioner may be permitted to supplement his arguments, if any, for discharge. The court shall thereafter assign briefly the reasons for its opinion that the case for discharge sought to be made out by the petitioner cannot be entertained in any of these cases. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of together under this common order.