Court's "SEAL of Approval"
+ Our CD is FACTUAL & Judicial-Documentary-Based
High-Ligts: Para 10
THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., B’LORE
this the 21st day of June 2006
Sri.K. Palakshappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
Sri.K. Palakshappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
the serial no. of the case
CC No. 8838/2005
the date of the commission
the name of the complainant if any
name of the accused, his
the offence complained of; or proved :
u/s.341, 353, r/w. 34 IPC
the plea of the accused and his
accused persons pleaded not guilty
the final order
U/s. 248(1) of Cr PC the accused are acquitted
the date of such order
the brief statement of the
The Sub Inspector of Police, Vidhanasoudha P S has filed the charge
sheet against the accused 1 & 2 alleging that the accused persons have
committed the offences punishable U/s. 341,353, r/w.
34 of IPC.
brief facts of the case
are that on 8/7/2004 at about 1-30 pm the accused
persons with common intention in front of Lok Ayukta office situated in
Multistoried building, Dr. Ambedkar road, holding banners in their hand by
distributing pamplets, CDs shouting slogans and demanding to close Lok
Ayukta office and restrained CW-2 H.C Nagabushana CW-3 M.Krishnappa,
CW-4 Arifulla Sharif, CW-5 Radhakrishna from entering the office and
caused disturbance to perform their duty. Hence, this charge sheet.
3. After receipt of the charge sheet, the plea has been recorded, read over to the accused persons
which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
Whether the prosecution proves the alleged offence against the
accused person beyond reasonable doubt?
In the Negative;
As per final order
below for the following:
Office. The offences alleged against the accused persons are
341,353 r/w 34 of IPC. After the investigation he has filed the charge
sheet against only two accused persons, as third accused person was
juvenile. The learned counsel for the accused persons has submitted his
argument that the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations
as it was suffering from so many lacunae. He submitted that none of the
witnesses have deposed to attract the ingredients of Sec.353 of IPC.
Therefore, he submits that accused persons are entitled for acquittal.
Under this background now I would like to say the case of the prosecution.
to the effect that the alleged incident took place outside the entrance of
office of Lok Ayukta. The counsel for the accused persons drew my
attention to the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that the accused persons
were distributing hand bills and CDs to the publics near the gate. By that
time publics have gathered there. Therefore, PW-1 felt some inconvenience
to enter the premises of the office. He never said that because of the act
of accused person he could not able to discharge his duty as usual. But
however, it is the evidence of PW-5 Muniyappa ASI that the accused persons
have obstructed one Nagabushana, Krishnappa, Sharifulla and one
Radhakrishna from doing their duty. Among them Nagabushan and Krishnappa
have been examined as PW-1 and respectively. I have already said that they
never deposed before the court that the accused persons wrongfully
restrained them and caused obstruction. It is clear from the evidence of
PW-1 that his movement was obstructed because of gathering of publics.
There is no any piece of evidence of PW-1 that his movement was obstructed
because of gathering of publics. There is no any piece of evidence to say
that the accused persons physically restrained those employees and
obstructed them from movements. Therefore, allegations u/s. 341 and 353
because there is no any direct involvement of the accused persons on that
any authority does not comes within the purview of sections as
alleged in the charge sheet and which is sufficient to acquit the accused
persons were shouting by holding banner and distributing the handbills.
According to investigator, he has seized handbills, banner and CDs and
filed the charge sheet. Whether the contents of CDs, handbills and banners
will amounts to any statement or not is not investigated. It is not the
evidence of investigator he has sent the CDs to know what it contained.
Therefore, there is evidence that those articles have been seized and
nothing further proceedings has been proved by the prosecution.
defence counsel. But however it is not a fatal point to throw the
complaint itself. Because the presence of accused persons and distribution
of CDs and holding of banner near the office of Lokayukth is not deride by
the accused person. It is his case that this false complaint is lodged
just because he has given a petition to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha about the
scandal. During the cross-examination of PW-3, an attempt has been made by
the counsel to get admission over the same. But PW-3 has not admitted the
same. There are no any such reasons to file a complaint against the
accused persons by PW-3 who is Registrar of office. There are no any good
reasons to claim against PW-3 it is clear that because of the act of
accused persons and raising slogans against the Hon’ble Lokayuktha in
public was in fact disturbing the officials of the said office and also it
made the publics to think other wise. But however the offences alleged
against the accused persons that they wrongly obstructed the officials and
caused obstructions to their official duty is not correct and the
is not proved. Another lacuna on the part of the investigation is that as
per the remand application dtd:8-7-2004 the IO has seized some handbills,
on banner and one CD and the same have been subjected to PF.16/04. But in
the PF it is mentioned as 8 CDs and according to the evidence of PW 6 he
has seized 8 CDs, 48 handbills and one banner from the accused persons
under mahazar marked as Ex.p3. In Ex.P-3 also it is said that some CDs and
banner and handbills have been seized. But while in the remand application
a different picture has been given. Therefore, he submits that the
prosecution also not properly proved the seizure of those articles. PW 4
& 5 has deposed about the Ex.P3. But I would like to say that seizure
of one CD or any number of CDs, or banner etc., is not important what is
the important was to be not application of sec. 353 of IPC. I have already
said that the act of the accused persons does not attract the ingredients
of sec.353 of IPC. Holding of banners, distributing of CDs will not come
in the way. Therefore, the allegation made by the prosecution itself has
no any effect and
it is not sufficient to convict the accused persons. before
passing final order, I would like to say that the property seized from the
accused persons cannot be returned to they just because the offences
alleged against them is not proved. Because, the same cannot be made use
of by them and it is better to destroy them as they have no any monetary
value. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
O R D E R
Acting U/s. 255 (1) of the criminal procedure code, the accused
persons are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 341, 353 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code. The bail bounds and surety bonds shall stand
cancelled. Accused persons are set at liberty.
M.O. 1 to 3 is ordered to be destroyed as worthless after appeal
time is over.
(Dictated to the
stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and prints out taken by
her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the
Open Court dated this the 21st June 2006.)
of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
P-2 Spot Mahazar
P-4 Voluntary statement of A1
of Material objects Marked on behalf of the prosecution :
Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore