VARADARAJU VEERAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN unsuccessful petitioner-accused has come up with this petition, challenging the order dated 27-12-2004 in s. C. No. 64/2002, passed by the Fast Track court-VIII, Sessions, Bangalore City.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the case are the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the I. P. C. The trial of the case was expected to commence on 27-12-2004 and the trial was to be conducted in an in-camera form. At that time, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted before the Court below to conduct the trial in the court hall itself in the form of in-camera, excluding the presence of unconcerned, as it is a normal procedure and it is not convenient to hold and conduct trial in the private chamber of the trial Court. But the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner was rejected and the trial court, directed the petitioner-accused, the counsel for the petitioner and the prosecutor to come to the chamber of the trial Court and rose from the Court. When the case is called in the chamber of the trial Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted an application under Section 327 of the cr. P. C. , to conduct the trial in the Court hall itself in the form of in-camera. But that application came to be rejected by the trial court and passed the impugned order under revision. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the records.