SANVLO NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants who are Original Accused Nos.5 and 2 have filed the Appeals challenging their conviction for an offence punishable under Sec. 304(II) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of 3 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000.00, in default Simple Imprisonment for 1 year for Accused No.2 and Simple Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.5000.00, in default Simple Imprisonment for 3 months for Accused No.5, by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, by Judgment dated 21st Jan., 2002, in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1996.

(2.) The facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of the Appeals are set out hereunder:-

(3.) One Liyakat Ali Khan, P.W.21, brother of deceased Abdul Gaffar Khan, filed a private complaint at Exh.103 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao. The said private complaint was registered as Criminal Case No.213/P/94/C. After recording the verification statement of the Complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, issued process against all the Accused except Original Accused No.3, Gundu Naik and Original Accused No.4, Narayan Yetale. It appears that against the issuance of process, the Accused filed Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 1994 and the same was allowed by Order dated 17th Aug., 1994. By the said Order, it appears that the learned Magistrate was directed to record his findings regarding the fulfilment of the requirement of obtaining previous sanction. The learned Magistrate by his Order dated 27th Feb., 1996, dismissed the complaint against all the Accused for want of a valid sanction. The Order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint was challenged by the Complainant before the Additional Sessions Judge who by his Order dated 24th Feb., 1997, set aside the Order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was directed to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. The said Order was challenged before this Court at the behest of Original Accused No.1, Joe D'Souza, Accused No.6, Jerry Gomes and Accused No.8, Pequeno. The revision was partly allowed by this Court and it quashed the Order dated 24th Feb., 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the extent that no previous sanction was necessary. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, it was registered as Sessions Case No.25 of 1997.