NARAYANA S/O RAMASHETTY vs THE STATE BY HANUR POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 against the order passed by the Sessions Judge on the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The said application is filed seeking discharge of the revision petitioner from the proceedings and the same was opposed by the State by filing objection statement; then the matter was heard, ultimately, the trial Court, after considering the materials, rejected the application filed by the petitioner/accused No.3.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the complaint and in the seizure mahazar stating that he was also involved in committing the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(B) read with Section 20(1)(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He has also submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 2, while giving voluntary statement, have disclosed that it is accused No.3, who supplied ganja to them, and hence, on that basis prosecution involved the petitioner in the case. Hence, he has submitted that voluntary statement made by the co-accused i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 taking the name of accused No.3 about his involvement in the case is not admissible as against the petitioner. He has submitted that the Court below has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and wrongly rejected the application.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court dated 28.10.2014 rendered in Crl.P.No.590/2014 in the case of Ashok B.Dani vs. State of Karnataka.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that the trial Court held that there is prima- facie material placed by the prosecution about the involvement of petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Hence, he has supported the order passed by the Sessions Judge and submitted to dismiss the revision petition.

I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition and also the order passed by the trial Court on the said application, so also, the FIR, complaint and the charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition.

Looking to the complaint and also the seizure mahazar there is no reference about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. But subsequently, as the I.O. said to have recorded the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 and they spoke about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the said offence, basing on the same, the trial Court rejected the application seeking discharge of the petitioner herein from the proceedings.

Perusing the materials placed on record, except the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, there is no other independent material to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the voluntary statement given by the co-accused is not binding and not admissible against the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter while considering and disposing of the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

As there is no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner/accused No.3 in committing the alleged offence, the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application is not sustainable in law.

Hence, revision petition is allowed and the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, in Spl.C.No.22/2016 is hereby set-aside and the petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be discharged from the proceedings.

Intimate the concerned Court accordingly.