AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice.
It is found that the petitioner was one of the accused along with 41 others who were accused of offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'', for brevity). It transpires that the petitioner was not readily available at the trial and therefore, the case against him was split up. It then transpires that the other accused had stood trial in C.C.No.540/2004 and they were acquitted honourably on the ground that the witnesses for the prosecution had turned hostile and that there was no evidence on the basis of which the charges could be held established. It is thereafter that the petitioner had appeared and surrendered before the Trial Court and the case is now ripe for trial against the petitioner and it is in that background that the petitioner is before this court.
It is contended that since the accusations and evidence against the accused who have been acquitted in the above case are identical insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, no useful purpose would be served in the proceedings being taken to their logical conclusion, for it is predictable that the petitioner would be acquitted in the absence of any cogent evidence for the prosecution in support of the charges and in this regard, he would submit that the law is well-settled in a catena of decisions by the Supreme Court as well as this court in several decisions.
The learned Government Pleader does not seriously dispute that the evidence that would be tendered against the petitioner is identical to the evidence that was alleged against the other accused who have been acquitted.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Akhilesh Singh AIR 2005 SC 268, in a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. K.C. Narasegowda ILR 2005 KAR 1822 and another judgment of this court in the case of Mohammed Ilias vs. State of Karnataka 2001 (3) KLJ 551, and also in Sunil Kumar vs. State of Delhi 2000 (1) Crimes 73 (Delhi), which was applied and followed in Mohammed Iliyas (supra) of this court, it is the consistent view that in such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in bringing the other accused against whom the case was split up to trial, if the other co-accused have been acquitted at a full-fledged trial. Therefore, the case against the present petitioner would be a futile exercise to be taken forward, as it would result in waste of valuable judicial time and effort and ultimately the result is predictable.
Therefore, the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.862/2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Virajpet, stands quashed.