STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K C NARASEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a reference by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, tumkur as to what should be done in respect of the absconding accused 1 in S. C. No. 57 of 1991 when the appeal preferred by the other accused against their conviction has been set aside by this Court, the case is preferred before us.

(2.) IT is necessary to note that, in all nine accused were tried in S. C. No. 57 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tumkur for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 326 and 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted all the accused on all counts and sentenced them accordingly. It is to be noted that after conviction the accused 1-Narasegowda S/o. Channegowda, who was on bail escaped the arrest and suffering of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. As per the note of the learned Sessions Judge, steps were taken in this regard but accused 1 remained untraced till date. In the meanwhile, the other convicted accused 2 to 9 approached this Court in cri. A. No. 225 of 1998 and the learned Single Judge of this Court on reappreciation of the entire evidence, by the judgment dated 4-3-2003 held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants (accused 2 to 9) beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the eight accused stood acquitted. Now, as accused 1 alone remained untraced and since the file so far as he is concerned for sentence is kept pending, the learned Sessions Judge under Section 395 (2) of the Cr. P. C. referred the matter to this Court.

(3.) AT the outset, we would like to note that the reference under section 395 of the Cr. P. C. is maintainable only in two situations as is clear from sub-section (1) of Section 395 of the Cr. P. C. , (i) where any court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and (ii) as per sub-section (2), a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate may refer a case for the decision of the High Court on any question of law arising in the hearing of such case. No doubt, the sessions case before the learned sessions Judge is not pending and as such, no question of law arises in hearing the case arising before him so as to make a reference under section 395 (2) of the Cr. P. C. and as such, prima facie, we feel that the reference is not maintainable.