STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VADDE YERRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN Criminal Appeal no. 195/2003 was argued for admission by the learned Addl. SPP, we found that in respect of discharge of the other two accused that the State had filed criminal revision petition and since both the proceedings arose out of a common order, we directed the office to produce the papers in criminal revision petition also. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP on merits in both the cases.

(2.) THE principal submission canvassed is that these accused persons are habitual offenders, that the offences are not only serious insofar as they are punishable with heavy jail sentences, but more importantly the nature of the offence is such that it must be categorised as anti-social offences, which undermines the law and order situation. In this background, we do agree with the learned Addl. SPP, when he submits that it is very necessary that the Law Enforcement machinery and the Courts must take a very rigorous view of this category of offences and those who indulge in them. The grievance projected by the State is that the learned trial Judge, for the reasons stated in the order, has acquitted two of the accused and discharged the other two. The reason for the acquittal is because the prosecution was unable to secure the presence of the accused at the trial, despite numerous opportunities being given to them and also, because none of the prosecution witnesses were also available for examination. So far as the remaining two accused are concerned they are discharged because they had never appeared before the Court. The prosecution stated that they were persons from the adjoining State of Andhra Pradesh and that despite all possible efforts it is not possible to secure their presence.

(3.) IT is a well settled principle of law that the accused cannot be tried in absentia. In instances where this Court is of the opinion that there is collusion between prosecuting agency and the accused and that the order of acquittal or discharge, is an outcome of such collusion, we would certainly interfere and set aside that order and direct the trial to proceed according to law. We, however. take cognizance of the fact that the accused in the present case are habitual offenders belonging to gangs or groups, which operate inter-State and which are constantly on the move. Such accused have no known place of residence and consequently, if they are acquitted or released on ball, the authorities often times find it difficult to trace them out. Added to this, the fact is that the accused of this category are virtually jail birds and are in custody in some town, city or village for the greater part of their lives and it is, therefore, difficult for the police authorities in some other part of the State to even know where exactly they are. We are satisfied from the present record that all necessary efforts have been made to trace them out and produce them and we are also satisfied that the trial Court has given the prosecution extra-ordinary indulgence in this regard. If despite all of those the securing of the accused becomes impossible then the law also requires that the case, which has become virtually infructuous, will have to be closed. With the pressure on the courts, it is neither desirable nor permissible to retain on record old cases where neither the accused nor the witnesses are available. This case comes within that category and in the facts and circumstances the trial court is fully justified in having closed the proceedings. Despite all that has been. pointed out by the learned Addl. SPP on merits, we also note that the evidence against the accused in this case is very minimal and a conviction would have been impossible, even if their presence had been secured. This is an added reason why we decline the application for reopening the proceedings. Both the criminal appeal and the criminal revision petition fail on merits and the same to stand dismissed. The delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Order accordingly.