CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 03 KAR CK 0092

Town Municipal Council Sira vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Sri G.P. Puttaraju Chief Officer (Erstwhile) City Municipal Council Sira

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 13 March 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Jagannathan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 824 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 362 words

V. Jagannathan

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Court below declining to allow the application filed u/s 245 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The facts in brief are that a complaint was filed u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. by the first respondent-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board alleging commission of various offences by the, petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for discharge u/s 245(2) of Cr.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the question of discharging the accused would arise only after recording the evidence before charge.

2.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Karunakar, learned HCGP, who is directed to take notice for the first respondent-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.

3.

Though the petitioner''s counsel submitted that the order of the Court below is liable to be interfered with, on the ground that the petitioner was not in service when the cognizance was taken and he joined only on 7.11.2007, the Court below considering the nature of the application filed by the petitioner and also having considering the provisions contained u/s 245 of the Cr.P.C, and having observed that the question of discharging the accused would arise only after taking all the evidence referred to u/s 244 of the Cr.P.C, the application filed by the petitioner was therefore liable to be dismissed and at the same time, the Court below also gave him liberty to make an application after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

4.

I, therefore, see no error committed by the Court below and the provisions contained u/s 245 of Cr.P.C. have been taken note of by the Court below, apart from relying on several judgments. Since liberty is also given to the petitioner to make an application for discharge after the evidence is taken, the petitioner can very well avail the said opportunity given to him.

5.

The petition in, therefore, rejected. But this in any way shall not affect the case of the petitioner at a later stage in the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.