AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto, J.—Heard Sri S.G. Math, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.R. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and the Human Rights Court, Bijapur in Human Rights Special Case No. 1/2011, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has held that there are sufficient grounds to proceed to frame charge against the accused Nos. 1 to 7 for offence punishable u/s 355 of IPC.
It is the case of the complainant before the Trial Court that when he was an accused in a case in C.C. No. 1704/2006 on the file of III-Additional JMFC, Bijapur, accused had violated the human rights of the complainant and therefore, offences u/s 355, 357, 342, 348 of IPC are made out in respect of the accused in causing violation of human rights and accordingly, case was filed before the Sessions Court which is the designated Court for the resolution of cases under the said Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Human Rights Court after going through the materials and also evidence of four witnesses examined by the complainant has come to the conclusion that an offence u/s 355 of IPC is made out and hence, he has held that there is material to frame charge for the said offence only, while holding that there are no grounds to frame charge against the accused for the offences under Sections 357, 342 and 348 of IPC.
Sri S.G. Math, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no grounds to hold that the petitioners have committed offence u/s 355 of IPC and therefore, the order dated 14.03.2013 may be set aside. He has also additionally prayed for quashing the entire proceedings in this petition.
It is settled principle of law that once the Trial Court after going through the materials produced before it holds that there is sufficient material to frame charge, the higher Court would not again conduct a mini trial to find out whether the fact finding of the learned Trial Court is proper or otherwise.
In that view of the matter, this Court will not go into the details of the materials. Suffice it to say that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with law. Once the charge is framed, it is for the accused to undergo the trial and seek an order of acquittal. Hence, petition is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the main matter, I.A. No. 2/2013 for extension of stay and I.A. No. 3/2013 for production of order sheet do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are dismissed.