STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MUNIVENKATAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent before me was put up for rtrial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Bangalore, under S.304-A IPC. The learned Magistrate, after following the procedure laid down in S.239 Cr.P.C., came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused was groundless and accordingly, discharged him.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the State that the learned Magistrate was wrong in dealing with the case under S.239 Cr.P.C. and (the order of discharge is manifestly contrary to the facrts. So far as the 1st contention is concerned, S.259 confers power on the Magistrate to convert a summons case relating to offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months into a warrant case, if he considers it necessary to do so in .the interest of justice and proceed to hear the case as a warrant case. In this case, the learned Magistiate has stated in his order that in the interest of justice it was necessary to try the case as a warrant case. I do not find anything wrong in this view of the Magistrate.

(3.) Turning to the merits of the case, there is very little that can be said in favour of the State, and it is necessary to mention the material facts. The accused who was a driver took in his lorry one Reva, cleaner and another person to bring sand from Ramanagram to Bangalore on 19-6-1976. After loading the lorry the accused proceeded to come to Bangalore. At that time, Reva was sitting in the lorry by the side of the door leaning on it along with one Hanumanthappa. Hanumanthappa was sitting by the right side of Reva. When the vehicle was being driven by the accused near Gali Anjaneya temple, the door of the lorry opened, consequently Reva fell down from the lorry. The left side hind wheel of the lorry ran over Reva resulting in his death.