SAIBANNA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 11 in the charge sheet, later registered before the Sessions Court in S.C. 321/2005. It is seen that due to the abscondance of the accused -petitioner a split up charge sheet was filed later in C.C. No. 510/2014. There are as many as 12 accused persons in the original charge sheet and all the accused persons Nos. 1 to 12 were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 12 in S.C. No. 321/2005. Out of them accused Nos. 1 & 6 died during the pendency of the proceedings and accused Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10 & 11 were split up from the proceedings. Subsequently a split up charge sheet is filed in the above C.C. No. 510/2014 before the J.M.F.C., Court Afzalpur. The petitioner sought for quashing of the said charge sheet filed against him on the ground that the other accused persons who were tried by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 321/2005 i.e. to say accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 9 & 12 were acquitted. It is the contention of the petitioner as argued by the learned counsel no special and separate allegations made against this petitioner. The entire charge sheet papers and as well as the evidence of the witnesses recorded in the said Sessions Case and also the Judgement of the trial Court, if it is read collectively it discloses that there are no separate or independent allegations made against accused No. 11 compared to the acquitted accused. Therefore the evidence recorded so far as acquitted accused is as well applicable so far as accused No. 11 (petitioner) is concerned.

(2.) WHEN the allegations made against the acquitted persons and absconding accused are inseparable in nature and no better evidence that can be led by the prosecution even if the petitioner is once again tried by the Sessions Court, therefore that would amounts a futile attempts to try the accused for the same offences, under such circumstances merely because accused was absconding, it cannot be a ground for the trial of the accused once again, because the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons by appreciating the evidence on record and found that there are no materials available in favour of the prosecution in order to convict any of the accused persons and that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore he contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) HAVING regard to the above said arguments, the Court has to see whether the petitioner has made out any substantial grounds to quash the proceedings against him as sought for in the petition.