RAMANNA @ RAMEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE present appeal is filed in the following background:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant would straight away point out that there is a cardinal error in the entire proceedings having been initiated and prosecuted against the present appellant, merely on the footing that he was the brother of Krishnegowda and the mill in question was in the name of his brother Krishnegowda and so also the land on which the mill was situated. Except that a part of the mill is in the property of the present appellant, as it has fallen to his share, there was no indication that the appellant had anything to do with the installation or the illegal extraction of the electrical energy, as alleged, for the benefit of the appellant. The mere fact that the appellant was the brother of Krishnegowda, he has been named as one of the accused. And further, Krishnegowda having died, during the pendency of the proceedings, the entire proceedings abated and the prosecution having gone ahead, only against the appellant, has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. In this regard, he would draw attention to the material documents , namely, the property register extracts and the voters list of the village, which would indicate that they were not residing jointly and were separately holding their respective lands. The application made for power supply by his brother Krishnegowda, Exhibit P.8; the inspection report, Exhibit P.10; an agreement letter, Exhibit P.12, would clearly indicate that the consumer for all purposes was Krishnegowda and Krishnegowda alone and it was not the joint establishment of the appellant along with Krishnegowda. Therefore, the mahazar having been drawn up and the Zilla Panchayat having issued a certificate, to show that the appellant along with Krishne gowda were brothers, did not presuppose that the appellant was illegally extracting the electrical energy, along with Krishnegowda, to run the mill, which was admittedly in the name of Krishnegowda. Hence, the learned Counsel would submit that this aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the court below and the finding, as if the appellant was a joint consumer and a joint owner of the land on which the mill was situated, is an error, which goes to the root of the matter and would render the entire proceedings against the appellant, a nullity and would thus have to be set aside.