STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KALLAPPA YALLAPPA GONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the State is directed against the order dated 27-7 1982 passed by Sri V. G. Charati, J.M.F.C., Bailhongal in C.C. No. 196/82, whereby the Learned Magistrate finding fault with the investigation made without prior permission has proceeded to make the order acquitting the accused.

(2.) In the first instance, the State filed appeal aginst the said order. Since the Magistrate bad proceeded to acquit the accused without trial, this Court held that inspite of the expression 'acquitted', it only amounts to a discharge of the accused and accordingly directed to register the appeal as revision. Accordingly, the appeal having been registered as revision, it has come up for hearing. The facts of the case briefly stated are these :

(3.) One Basavaraj Maharudrappa Angadi of Bailhongal village, who was working as a Patkari in Irrigation Department at Bailhongal was engaged in opening a sub-canal in the limits of Budihal village in Block No. 1-B, on 1-2-1982. When he was so engaged and was correcting a breach in the channel in S. Nos. 67/1, 2A/1B+1A/2 said to be belonging to accused Kallappa Budihal, the latter went abusing him in filthy words and started assaulting him. He picked up a stone and hurled it. The stone hit on the back of Basavaraj. Basavaraj went away from there and appraised of the same to the Chairman of the Village Panchayat, Budihal, and he later on approached the police and lodged a written complaint in Bailhongal Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who was in charge of the police station, on the basis of the complaint, registered a case in Cr. No. 13/82 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323. 336, 337 and 504 IPC and took up investigation. After investigation of the case, however, he found that only commission of non-cognizable offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 IPC were disclosed. Accordingly, he made a report to the Magistrate. The Magistrate, after taking cognizance on the said report, issued summons for appearance of the accused and when the accused appeared and objected to the report made by the police on the ground that the investigation made by the police without prior permission of the Magistrate was illegal, the Magistrate, after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused, being of the view that the investigation made by the investigating Officer was illegal and the cognizance taken on such report made by the police was also illegal and the only course open was to acquit the accused, accordingly, made the order under revision.