PILLOORBASHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner herein by name Pilloorbasha is arrayed as accused No. 11 in the original charge sheet in C.C. No. 207/1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity) and also under Section 25(1) of Indian Arms Act. As some of the accused persons were absconding, a committal order has been passed by the Committal Magistrate directing accused Nos. 1 to 8, to be tried before the Court. Subsequently, accused Nos. 9 to 13 were split up and accused Nos. 1 to 8 were sent for trial. The accused Nos. 1 to 8 were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, in S.C. No. 47/1994 vide judgment dated 06.12.1995 and the accused Nos. 1 to 8 were acquitted for the charges levelled against them. The State being aggrieved by said judgment of acquittal has preferred an appeal before this Court in Crl. A. Nos. 277/1996 c/w. 407/1996. The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 04.06.2001 has dismissed the said appeals filed by State. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by trial Court, insofar as accused Nos. 1 to 8 are concerned has reached the finality. There is no material before this Court to show that the said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) ON perusal of the judgment passed in S.C. No. 47/1994, it clearly discloses that on 20.06.1993 at about 11.45 p.m. at Mundalli village in Bhatkal taluk, accused Nos. 1 to 13 have formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of committing riot and they were armed with deadly weapons to cause injuries to C.Ws. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 and to commit murder of one person by name Manjunath Mastappa Moger and caused damage to the house of C.W. 20. Therefore, a case was registered against them. The charges framed by trial Court also discloses that the Court has framed charges for the above said offences including the overt acts of absconding accused persons and has ultimately come to the conclusion that accused Nos. 1 to 8 along with other 5 accused persons have not committed the offences alleged against them. The prosecution has not proved the case against accused Nos. 1 to 8, as they were present before the Court, the acquittal judgment was pronounced by the Court. On going through the observations made by learned Sessions Judge, the evidence of prosecution witnesses in its entirety is considered not only against accused Nos. 1 to 8, but also against other five accused persons. Perhaps for that reason the further proceedings in C.C. No. 1089/2008 might have been quashed, so far as accused Nos. 10 and 12 are concerned. The said judgment of acquittal was challenged by State and the Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the judgment of acquittal. In my opinion no purpose would be served even if this accused No. 11 is sent before the trial Court for trial. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No. 1089/2008, which was initiated against accused No. 11 and others is liable to be quashed and no purpose would be served even if the said proceedings are kept pending in order to secure the absconding accused into the case. The purpose of securing absconding accused in the said case is only for the purpose of putting the said accused on trial when purpose of holding the trial itself is proved to be frustrated, there is no reason to continue the said proceedings against this petitioner. Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to reject the petition. Hence, petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 1089/2008 so far it relates to this petitioner is hereby quashed.