KALAPPA ABDUL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order rejecting the request of the petitioner for discharge for the offence punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 420 of IPC.

(2.) THE facts reveal that the petitioner was an accused in Spl.C.C. No. 15/1998 along with other accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. They were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 420 of IPC. As the petitioner was not available for a trial, the case against him was split -up and ultimately, accused Nos. 1 and 4 were acquitted of the charges aforesaid. After securing the presence of the petitioner, the trial Court has now registered Spl.C.C. No. 61/2013 and when the matter was posted for hearing before charge, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for his discharge.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos. 1 and 4 have been acquitted of the charges and that the petitioner had valued the goods at Rs. 67,632/ - and the Department assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 75,000/ - and in case there is variation in the assessment of the value of the goods, it is not the petitioner who is responsible and there is no evidence of conspiracy between the petitioner and accused No. 3. Hence, the question of framing the charge for the offence under Section 420 of IPC does not arise. It is also her contention that it is the case of evading duty and is an offence under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act for which a charge has to be framed and in the absence of such charge, the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the general law is not attracted. It is also her contention that the Customs or the State is not a person and Section 420 of IPC does not apply. On these grounds, she submits that the order of the learned Special Judge framing charges is improper and sought for setting aside the order and to grant an order of discharge.