Karanika Nallappa vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petition coming on for Admission, is considered for final disposal, under the following circumstances.

The petitioner was the accused before the court below, whereby, it was alleged by the complainant, namely, the Tahsildar, Taluk Magistrate, Tumkur, alleging that on 20.1.2011, the petitioner had illegally cut and removed eucalyptus trees on land bearing survey No. 10 of Chikkaseebi Village on 19.1.2011 and prior to that date. On the basis of the said complaint, the Kora Police Station had filed FIR against the petitioner in a case bearing Crime No. 12/2011 alleging that the petitioner be committed for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC", for brevity). After further investigation on the question whether the land belongs to the petitioner or not and without recording the statement of the petitioner, had filed charge sheet against the petitioner on 7.4.2011 and in the course of the investigation, it was not brought to the attention of the Court that the present petitioner had even filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 10/2011 claiming declaration and title in respect of their item of land, as there was constant interference by the officials of the State. However, on the basis of the charge sheet, a case having been registered in C.C. No. 1287/2011, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., seeking discharge and has sought to produce material documents to establish that the suit filed by him had been decreed and even that the State may have filed the appeal against the same as on the date of the complaint. By virtue of the decree having been passed in his favour, the petitioner had every right to cut and remove the trees. It has been declared by a Civil Court that the petitioner was indeed the owner of the property. The Trial Court however, has dismissed the application and has pointedly negated the documents that were produced to establish that not only the petitioner was the owner of the property, but there was a judgment and decree of the Civil Court to effect the same and there was an order of injunction against the State and its officials from interfering with the possession of the property. The commission of offence alleged was not conceivable. The court below has rejected the material documents produced by ironically referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, , wherein it has held that it would be possible for the accused to produce material document at the time of hearing, under Section 227 of the Code. While addressing this aspect of the matter, the Apex Court has held as follows:

"The object of providing an opportunity as is envisaged in Section 227 of the Code is to enable the court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends there it gains a lot of time of the court and saves much human efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings."

Hence, he Court was of the view that the Sessions Judge could be within his powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code. This categorically pronounced judgment was overlooked by the Sessions Court in negating the documents though the petitioner had a judgment and decree in his favour. Insofar as the present case is concerned, there was a prima facie case. No case could be made out to prove that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 379 IPC. This is sought to be canvassed in the present petition. 2. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that it is admitted that the petitioner, though there was a judgment and decree in respect of the land in question, the same has been challenged in appeal pending before this Court in RFA No. 568/2012 and hence, it is not concluded that the petitioner had established his title over the land. Since it is quite possible that even if the State has not filed its pleadings in the suit and has not effectively contested the suit, there is possibility, if the matter be remanded, then the State may be in position to prove that the petitioner was indeed not the owner of the land in question. This submission of the learned Government Pleader would only speculate that there may be a possibility of proving its case and the matter may be remanded.

As such, in the eye of law, the petitioner is the owner of the property. Hence, the commission of offence as alleged in respect of that property cannot be sustained. Consequently, the court below was not justified in negating the documents and holding that the petitioner could not be discharged in the glaring circumstances and incidentally the main order was carried by way of revision petition to the Fast Track Court at Tumkur. However, the Fast Track Court has dismissed the petition off hand holding that it is not a Sessions Court and was a designated Fast Track Court and could not entertain the revision petition. Hence, the present petition.

Given the above circumstances, the petitioner had made out a case for discharge. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the court below in C.C. No. 1282/2011 dated 28.7.2012 is set aside. The petitioner stands discharged and the proceedings stand closed.