KIRAN KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is before this Court in the following background:

(3.) HOWEVER , after having considered the submissions and the circumstances of the case, it is to be noticed that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is provided that the Court may in the course of enquiry or trial of an offence, if it opines that from the evidence, any person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. This being the power conferred to the Court, it cannot be said that the impugned order was without the power of the Court. The opinion formed is not conclusive and does not have the effect of convicting the person now summoned, namely the present petitioner. Therefore, at a stage where the trial has only now commenced before the Trial Court and the Court having opined that the petitioner may be one of the accused involved, would be a situation where this Court would not be in a position to interfere unless it has resulted in any injustice to the petitioner. Since the law which is provided for such a situation and which is well within the discretion of the Trial Court to exercise, there is no warrant to interfere. The incidental circumstances that has caused embarrassment, inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner, would not be a ground for this Court to interfere. If otherwise there is a semblance of a connection established, in the petitioner also being involved along with his father, who is said to be accused No. 1, which is yet to be found at the trial. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference. The petition is rejected accordingly.