Even otherwise on merits also, the petition is
not maintainable as the charge sheet was submitted on
04.01.2021 itself, which is evident from the records
produced by the present petitioner himself. The present
petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge
sheet. The charge sheet was submitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC
and Section 25(I-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 against the
present petitioner. However, as some of the accused were
absconding, the investigation officer in his charge sheet
itself sought leave of the Court to submit supplementary
charge sheet in due course. The supplementary charge
sheet was submitted on 17.05.2021 by collecting some
additional material.
supplementary charge sheet is
submitted against other accused or for additional evidence,
the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., cannot be
applicable. Hence, question of applicability of Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C., does not arise at all in the present case
to the accused, against whom charge sheet has already
been submitted and who was arrested subsequently.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
BEFORE
MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101403 OF 2021
BETWEEN
SRI. SANTOSH HARI KADAM Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section
439 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order passed by the
Principal Sessions Judge, Koppal in Criminal Revision
Petition No.21/2021 dated 07.07.2021 confirming the
order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in
C.C.No.1/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections
380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC and Section 25(I-A) of the
Arms Act, 1959.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1 and he has
been prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC and Section 25(IA)
of the Arms Act, 1959. Initially, crime was registered in
Crime No.78/2020 of Bevoor police station and after
investigation, the investigation officer has submitted
charge sheet on 04.01.2021 at 3.00 pm against the
accused persons. The present petitioner is shown as
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sectisn
439 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order passed by the
Principal Sessions Judge, Kopnai in Criminal Revision
Petition No.21/2021 deted C7.07.2021 confirming the
order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in
C.C.No.1/2021 tor the offences punisnable under Sections
380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC and Section 25(I-A) of the
Arms Act, 1959.
2. Tne brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1 and he has
been prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC and Section 25(IA)
of the Arms Act, 1959. Initially, crime was registered in
Crime No.78/2020 of Bevoor police station and after
investigation, the investigation officer has submitted
charge sheet on 04.01.2021 at 3.00 pm against the
accused persons. The present petitioner is shown as
accused No.1 in the charge sheet. The present petitioner
was arrested on 06.02.2021. The supplementary charge
sheet came to be filed on 17.05.2021 under Section
173(8) of Cr.P.C., Hence, it is contended that the charge
sheet has not been submitted within 90 days from the date
of his arrest and as such, he sought for statutory bail
under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has
rejected the said petition and against the said order, the
petitioner has filed revision before the learned Sessions
Judge at Koppal and his revision petition also came to be
rejected. Hence, he has approached this Court.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by both the
parties and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would simply
submit that he was arrested on 06.02.2021 and
supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 17.05.2021
and as the supplementary charge sheet is not filed within
90 days, as per the statute, he is entitled for statutory bail
accused No.1 in the charge sheet. The present petitioner
was arrested on 06.02.2021. The supplementary cherge
sheet came to be filed on 17.05.2021 under Section
sheet has not been submitted within 90 days from the date
sougist under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has
befcre Judge at Konpal and his revision petition also came to be
> 3. Heard the arguments advanced by both the
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would simply
supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 17.05.2021
90 days, as per the statute, he is entitled for statutory bail
173(8) of Cr.P.C., Hence, it is contended that the charae
of his arrest and as such, he sougitt for statutory bail
rejected the said petition and against the said order, the
petitioner has filed revision befere the learned Sessions
rejected. Hence, ne has approached this Court.
parties and perused the records.
submit that he was arrested on 06.02.2021 and
and as the supplementary charge sheet is not filed within
and both the Courts have erred in rejecting his application.
He has also placed reliance on two citations.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has objected the
petition on the ground that the charge sheet was
submitted against the present petitioner prior to his arrest
only. Hence, he submits that the provisions of Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C. cannot be applicable to him. Hence, he
would seek for rejection petition.
6. Having heard the arguments, it is evident that
at the first instance, the petitioner has filed this petition
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the
Trial Court as well as Revisional Court. The petition itself is
not maintainable as the provisions of Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., were not invoked in this petition. The office ought
to have raised objections in this regard, but for the best
reasons known, no office objections have been raised.
7. Even otherwise on merits also, the petition is
not maintainable as the charge sheet was submitted on
04.01.2021 itself, which is evident from the records
and both the Courts have erred in rejecting his 2nptication,
He has also placed reliance on two citations.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP.has objected. tre
petition on the ground thet the. charge sneet was
submitted against the present petitioner prior to his arrest
only. Hence, he submits tnat the provisions of Section
167(2) of Cr.P.€. cannot be aprlicable to him. Hence, he
would seek for rejection petition.
6. Having heard the arguments, it is evident that
at the first instance, the petitioner has filed this petition
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the
Trial Court as well as Revisional Court. The petition itself is
not maintainable as the provisions of Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., were not invoked in this petition. The office ought
to have raised objections in this regard, but for the best
reasons known, no office objections have been raised.
7. Even otherwise on merits also, the petition is
not maintainable as the charge sheet was submitted on
04.01.2021 itself, which is evident from the records
produced by the present petitioner himself. The present
petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge
sheet. The charge sheet was submitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC
and Section 25(I-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 against the
present petitioner. However, as some of the accused were
absconding, the investigation officer in his charge sheet
itself sought leave of the Court to submit supplementary
charge sheet in due course. The supplementary charge
sheet was submitted on 17.05.2021 by collecting some
additional material. Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., deals with
supplementary charge sheet, which states as under:
173. Report of police officer on completion of
investigation.
(1) xxxxx
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) xxxxx
(5) xxxxx
(6) xxxxx
(7) xxxxx
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
preclude further investigation in respect of an
produced by the present petitioner himself. The present
petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge
sheet. The charge sheet was submitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC
and Section 25(I-A) of the Armis Act, 1959 against the
present petitioner. However, as some of the accused were
absconding, the investigation officer in his charge sheet
itself sought. leave of the Court to submit supplementary
charge sheet in due course. The supplementary charge
sheet was submitted en 17.05.2021 by collecting some
additional material. Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., deals with
supplementary charge srieet, which states as under:
173. Report of police officer on completion of
investigation.
(1) XxXxx
(3) XXxxx
(5) XxXxxx
(6) XXxxx
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
preclude further investigation in respect of an
(2) XKXXX
(4) XXXxx
(7) XXXXx
offence after a report under sub- section (2) has
been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where
upon such investigation, the office-in-charge of
the police station obtains further evidence, oral
or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports regarding
such evidence in the form prescribed; and the
provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as
far as may be, apply in relation to such report
or reports as they apply in relation to a report
forwarded under sub- section (2).
8. Hence, for submitting supplementary charge
sheet, leave of the Court is not required and the statute
itself has given powers to the investigation officer to
submit supplementary charge sheet, if any material is
found. However, in the instance case, the charge sheet is
submitted against the present petitioner on 04.01.2021
itself and he was arrested on 06.02.2021 i.e. after
submission of the charge sheet.
9. Therefore, now it is necessary to consider
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
167. Procedure when investigation cannot
be completed in twenty-four hours
offence after a report under sub- section (2) tias
been forwarded to the Magistrate anc, where
upon such investigation, the office-ii-charge of
the police station obtains surther evidence, crel
,sorward such evidence in the form prescribed; and the
sections shail, far as may be, apply in relation te such report
forwarded uncer sub- section (2).
8. Hence, for submitting supplementary charge
sheet, leave of the Court is not required and the statute
itself has. given powers to the investigation officer to
submit supplementary charge sheet, if any material is
found. However, in the instance case, the charge sheet is
submitted. against the present petitioner on 04.01.2021
itself and. he was arrested on 06.02.2021 i.e. after
submission of the charge sheet.
9. Therefore, now it is necessary to consider
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
167. Procedure when investigation cannot
be completed in twenty-four hours
or documentary, he _ shall forward to. the
Magistrate a further report or reports regarding
provisions of sub- sectivons (2) to (6) shali, as
or reports as they apply in relation to a report
-7-
(1) xxxxxx
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person
is forwarded under this section may, whether he
has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from
time to time, authorise the detention of the
accused in such custody as such Magistrate
thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days
in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try
the case or commit it for trial, and considers
further detention unnecessary, he may order
the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate
having such jurisdiction:
PROVIDED that,-
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention
of the accused person, otherwise than in the
custody of the police, beyond the period of
fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate
grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate
shall authorise the detention of the accused
person in custody under this paragraph for a
total period exceeding,-
(i) ninety days, where the investigation
relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of not less than ten years,
(1) XxXxxxx
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person
is forwarded under this section may, whether he
has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from
time to time, authorise the detention of the
accused in such custody as such Megistrate
thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen Cays
in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try
the case or commit it fer trial, and considers
further detention unnecessary, he may order
the accusea to Le forwarded to a Magistrate
PROVIDED trat,-
serson, custody of tke police, beyond the period of
grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate
shail authorise the detention of the accused
person in custody under this paragraph for a
total period exceeding,-
(i) ninety days, where the _ investigation
relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of not less than ten years,
having sucti jurisdiction.
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention
of the accused nserson, otherwise than in the
fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate
-8-
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation
relates to any other offence, and, on the
expiry of the said period of ninety days, or
sixty days, as the case may be, the accused
person shall be released on bail if he is
prepared to and does furnish bail, and every
person released on bail under this subsection
shall be deemed to be so released
under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for
the purposes of that Chapter;]
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of
the accused in custody of the police under this
section unless the accused is produced before
him in person for the first time and
subsequently every time till the accused
remains in the custody of the police, but the
Magistrate may extend further detention in
judicial custody on production of the accused
either in person or through the medium of
electronic video linkage;]
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not
specially empowered in this behalf by the High
Court, shall authorise detention in the custody
of the police.
Explanation I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is
hereby declared that, notwithstanding the
expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a),
(ii) sixty days, where the_ investigation
relates to any other offence, and, on the
expiry of the said period of ninety days, or
sixty days, as the case may be, the accused
person shall be released on bail if he is
person released on bail under iris subsection
under the provisions cf Chapter XXXIII for
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of
section unless the accused is produced before
remains in the custody of the police, but the
judicial custody on production of the accused
electronic video linkage; ]
specially empowered in this behalf by the High
of the police.
Explanation I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is
expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a),
prepared to and cloes furnish bail, and every
shal! be deemed te be so released
the purposes of that Chapter; j
the accused in custody of the police under this
him -in. person. for. the first time and
subsequentiy every time till the accused
Magistrate may extend further detention in
either in person or through the medium of
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not
Court, shall authorise detention in the custody
hereby declared that, notwithstanding the
-9-
the accused shall be detained in custody so long
as he does not furnish bail;].
Explanation II.- If any question arises whether
an accused person was produced before the
Magistrate as required under clause (b), the
production of the accused person may be
proved by his signature on the order authorising
detention or by the order certified by the
Magistrate as to production of the accused
person though the medium of electronic video
linkage, as the case may be:]
PROVIDED FURTHER that in case of women
under eighteen years of age, the detention shall
be authorised to be in the custody of a remand
home or recognized social institution.]
10. Hence, as per Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate can order for detention of the accused for
maximum 90 days or 60 days as the case may be if the
charge sheet is not filed and investigation is not concluded
from the date of arrest. Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., is
applicable only when charge sheet is not laid down and it
starts operative when accused is arrested during the
course of investigation, but if charge sheet is filed against
the accused shall be detained in custody se long
as he does not furnish bail; ].
Explanation II.- If any question arises whether
an accused person was produced before the
Magistrate as required under clause (b), the
production of the accused perso may be
proved by his signature orn the order authorising
Magistrate as to. production of trie accused
linkage, as the case may be:]
PROVIGED under eighteen years of age, the detention shall
bein 1Q. Hence, as per Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate can order for detention of the accused for
maximum 90 days or 60 days as the case may be if the
charge sheet is not filed and investigation is not concluded
from the date of arrest. Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., is
applicable only when charge sheet is not laid down and it
starts operative when accused is arrested during the
course of investigation, but if charge sheet is filed against
detention or by the order certified by the
person though the meaium of electronic video
PROVICED FURTHER that in case of women
be authorised to be in the custody of a remand
home or recognized social institution. ]
particular accused and supplementary charge sheet is
submitted against other accused or for additional evidence,
the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., cannot be
applicable. Hence, question of applicability of Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C., does not arise at all in the present case
to the accused, against whom charge sheet has already
been submitted and who was arrested subsequently. The
learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
No.699/2020 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.2333/2020
and also Criminal Appeal No.319/2021 arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No.6181/2020, but both the cases are
pertaining to UAPA Act and further in both the cases, after
arrest, charge sheet came to be filed. Hence, the principles
enunciated in the above cases, cannot be made applicable
to the facts and circumstances of present case on hand. In
the present case, after submission of the charge sheet
against the present petitioner, who is accused No.1, he
was arrested and later on supplementary charge sheet is
submitted. Supplementary charge sheet is only an
particular accused and supplementary charge sheet is
submitted against other accused or for additional evidence,
the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., cannot be
applicable. Hence, question of appiicability. of Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C., does not arise at all in the present case
been submitted and who was arrested subsequently. The
learned counsel! for petitioner has placed reliance on a
No.699/20290 arising. ovt of SLP (Criminal) No.2333/2020
(Criminal) -No.6181/2620, but both the cases are
arrest, charge sheet came to be filed. Hence, the principles
enunciated in the above cases, cannot be made applicable
to the facts and circumstances of present case on hand. In
the present case, after submission of the charge sheet
against the present petitioner, who is accused No.1, he
was arrested and later on supplementary charge sheet is
submitted. Supplementary charge sheet is only an
to the accused, against whom charge sheet has already
counse! decision cf tne Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
and also Criminal Appeal No.319/2021 arising out of SLP
pertaining to UAPA Act and further in both the cases, after
additional material collected against the accused persons.
Hence, the petition is devoid of any merits and is
misconceived and hence, it needs to be rejected both on
maintainability and as well as on merits. Hence, the
following;
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the above
petition, pending interlocutory applications, if
any, do not survive for consideration and are
dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment