State of Karnataka vs Rangaiah

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The present petition is filed by the State in the following backgrounds.

The respondent was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The Court had taken cognizance and directed summons to be issued to the accused. The summons was unserved. The Court had then directed non bailable warrant to be issued repeatedly and the same not having been executed, by an order dated 26.09.2008, the Court had recorded that non bailable warrant issued against the accused had been returned unexecuted with a report that the accused has gone to Bangalore for treatment and though enough opportunity was granted to the concerned police, they have failed to execute the warrant and has recorded that at the risk of concerned police, the case is closed. It is this order of the Court and the manner in which the proceedings has been set up has sought to be questioned in the present petition.

After having heard the learned State Public Prosecutor, it is to be seen from a reading of Rule 1 of Chapter IV of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, the said rule reads as follows:

"When process has been issued for the attendance of the accused, but the case has remained pending for a period of six months owing to the non appearance of the accused and the Magistrate is satisfied that the presence of such accused cannot be secured within a reasonable time or when the accused person found to be of unsound mind is released under Section 466(1) or detained in safe custody under Section 466(2) of the Code, the Magistrate shall report the case for the orders of the Sessions Judge, who may, if he thinks fit, order that the name of such accused shall be removed from the Register of Criminal Cases (Register No. III). The case shall then be entered in the Register of Long Pending Cases (Register No. XIII), to be maintained by all Magistrates:

Provided that, before making such a report to the Sessions Judge, the Magistrate shall have complied with the requirements of Sections 87 and 88 of the Code and, whenever practicable, the provisions of Section 512."

Apparently, the Court below has complied with Sections 87 and 88 and though the rule refers to Section 512, (apparently, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and which corresponds to Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), may not be relevant for the purpose of this case. Given the circumstances, the further procedure prescribed is that in the circumstances such as in the present case on hand, the Magistrate was required to report the case for the orders of the Sessions Judge who in turn would have decided as to the further course of removing the name of the accused from the Register of Criminal Cases and direct that the case be entered in the Register of Long Pending Cases. This is the procedure which was required to be followed and the Court below having straightaway directed that the case be closed is not contemplated and is not in accordance with the rule.

Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate to report to the Court of Sessions Judge in accordance with Rule 1 Chapter IV of the Karnataka Criminal Rules and Practice, 1968 and further steps shall be taken in accordance with law or otherwise there is no warrant for interference, in the aforesaid circumstances, where the Court below has otherwise proceeded in accordance with law.

With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.