Bette Gowda vs The State of Karnataka and Mantagonda Satish

Jawad Rahim, J.—The petitioner has questioned in this proceeding the order passed in C.C. No. 35/2013 arising out of P.C. No. 12/2013, issuing body warrant and non-bailable warrant against him. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records. It reveals:

Respondent No. 2/Mantagonda Satish filed a private complaint on 18.01.2013 in P.C. No. 12/2013 against the petitioner before the Principal J.M.F.C., Gangavathi and also five others, seeking prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 414, 417, 419, 420, 421, 120B, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. on the allegation that the petitioner and other accused including one T. Hemant Rao were introduced to him and they were using lorries of accused Nos. 1 and 2. On 28.12.2012 and 29.12.2012, respondent No. 2 supplied rice of various brands in 2076 bags, each measuring 25 kilograms, valued at Rs. 3,500/- per quintal vide Bill Nos. 287 and 289. They collected the rice on the assurance that they would pay value within ten days. But, later failed to make payment. Consequently, on 10.01.2013, he approached the petitioner and others, but the petitioner herein colluded with other accused and instead of making payment, denied having received the goods, undoubtedly with an intention to cheat and defraud him.

Consequently, he sought for search of the premises of the petitioner and others for tracing the rice sold and on the basis of his request, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate exercising power u/s 94 of Cr.P.C. passed the order issuing search warrant by order dated 18.01.2013. Besides, he has taken cognizance following the procedure prescribed and on the basis of submission made by respondent No. 2 that petitioner was in custody in another case registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, issued body warrant in Crime No. 17/2013 of Parappana-Agrahara Police Station.

However, as the petitioner was not in judicial custody, he has again ordered non-bailable warrant. The petitioner has questioned these orders on the ground that it amounts to double jeopardy and if both the proceedings are allowed, it will not only be illegal, but cause great hardship to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner has not appeared before the learned J.M.F.C. in C.C. No. 35/2013, arising out of P.C. No. 12/2013. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the action before the Magistrate.

It could be seen, on the basis of information furnished to the court, petitioner''s godown at Govindshety paiya, Basavanagar, Bangalore, was raided for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and that four persons including petitioner were arrested, thus body warrant was issued. Later, it transpired that accused/petitioner was remanded to judicial custody till 04.02.2013. On 23.01.2013, his application was allowed granting him bail and he was released. The petitioner was arrested and released by the Court on 24.01.2013. Thus, he was not in judicial custody as on the date body warrant was issued. Therefore, such an order cannot be termed as illegal, because if the petitioner was not in judicial custody, body warrant was ineffective. However, as he did not appear before the trial Judge in C.C. No. 35/2013, non-bailable warrant has been issued. The right course would be, the petitioner should surrender before the Magistrate and seek recalling of the order, which is statutorily provided efficacious remedy No ground is made in this petition to exercise power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Therefore, petition is rejected.