K.N. PUTTARAJU, S/O NARASIMHAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HANUMANTHANAGARA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are the outcome of the judgment of the lower appellate court, which had remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The trial court had convicted the accused in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 474 and 420 of the I.P.C. and an appeal preferred by the accused and the matter was remitted to the trial court. Thus, both the complainant and the accused are aggrieved by the order or remand in Crl.A. No. 676/2010 passed by the learned judge of the F.T.C. on 19.7.2011. The complainant has preferred Crl. R.P. No. 1012/2011 and the accused has preferred Crl.R.P. No. 1087/2011.

(2.) SHRI M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for has remanded the case to the trial court and the reasons given are not justifiable. On the other hand, on the basis of the evidence on record, the lower appellate court could have disposed of the case on merits.

(3.) HAVING thus heard both sides and the lower appellate followed by the trial court and particularly in not marking several documents upon which reliance was placed and also in the absence of production of the agreement of sale dated 25.11.1998 and recording a finding on the said agreement of sale as a forged document, in my view, the reasons assigned by the lower appellate court at paragraph -17 of its judgment, therefore, have rightly led to the lower appellate court remanding the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. I see no error being committed by the learned judge of the lower appellate court in remanding the case for the aforesaid reasons.