LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus NARSA REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
NARSA REDDY
AUGUST 14, 1987
B
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-s.482-/nherent Powe.rs of
-/"
High Court-Power cannot be exercised so as to split trial of accused
(
c
which is apt to cause miscarriage of justice and serious prejudice to
prosecution.
While the respondent, alongwith another person, was being tried
under ss. 302 and 201 read withs. 34 I.P.C., etc., for causing the death
of his wife, the evidence recorded revealed the involvement of two police
officials in the disposal of the dead body, and, they were also charged
under s. 201 read withs. 341.P.C. and the trial was ordered to be held
D de novo against all the four accused. However, the trial could not
proceed as the two police officials whose plea that, being public
servants, it was necessary to obtain a sanction for prosecution under
s. 197 Cr. P.C. for impleading them as accused, was rejected, appro-
ached the High Court in Revision and obtained stay of the trial. The
respondent applied for bail under s. 439(1), Cr. P.C. contending that
y
E the trial was unduly protracted, and on its rejection, approached the
High Court in Revision. A Single Judge of the High Court rejected the -4
application for bail, vacated the stay granted by the High Court earlier
·
insofar as the respondent and the other person who was originally
accused with him was concerned and directed the Sessions Judge to
proceed with the trial as against them only.
F
Allowing the appeal, and, directing continuance of stay of the trial
till the disposal of the Revision filed by the two police officials,
HELD: It is somewhat strange that the learned Single Judge
should have made a direction at all requiring the learned Sessions Judge
to proceed with the trial as against the respondent and the other
G accused merely because there was stay granted by the High Court in the 'y
Revision preferred by the two police officials. If he felt that the stay
would prejudicially affect the respondent and the other accused and
subject them to a protracted trial, the proper course was to have heard
and disposed of the Revision filed by the two police officials rather than
make a direction of this kind which would, result in the splitting up of
H the trial and is apt to cause miscarriage of justice, besides serious pre-
968
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. N. REDDY [SEN, J.]
969
judice to the prosecution. From the nature of the prosecution case, it is
A
quite apparent that the evidence to be led by the prosecution would be
more or less common as it relates to the same occurrence. It could not
be said that merely because the proceedings were held up due to stay
gr.anted by the High Court the learned Single Judge could have taken
l recourse to the inherent powers of the High Court under s. 482, Cr.
r-r.c., or that it was necessary to do so either to prevent abuse of the
B
:r process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. [97IC-F]
r
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 361 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.1986 of the Karnataka
{
High Court in Crl. P.C. No. 69 of 1986.
C
P.R. Ramasesh, Adv. for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. The question involved in this appeal by special leave is
whether the High Court of Karnataka was justified in directing the
Sessions Judge, Bidar to proceed with the trial of Sessions Case No. 23
of 1984 insofar as it relates to the respondent Narsa Reddy and one
Vaijinath, accused No. 2, arraigned for having committed alleged
offences punishable under ss. 302 and 201 both n;ad withs. 34 of the
)>.. Indian Penal Code, 1860 and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
While issuing notice, we were not satisfied about the legality and
T pro1:!dety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had
D
E
the effect of splitting up of the trial although the prosecution case
against the accused arose out of the same incident and the evidence to F
be led by the prosecution against them was more or less common. It
also seemed to us that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge
were to be implemented, the learned Sessions Judge would be
constrained to proceed against the respondent and accused No. 2
Vaijinath and thereby the very object of directing de nova trial would
"fbe frustrated. At the hearing, no one appeared for the respondent and G
therefore we did not have the benefit of heaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.