Bangalore District Court
Ramachandra N vs Chandra on 21 April, 2026
KABC030730912018
Presented on : 03-10-2018
Registered on : 03-10-2018
Decided on : 21-04-2026
Duration : 7 years, 6 months, 18 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 21st day of April-2026
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.26958/2018
(Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 19.11.2016
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Person Chandra
S/o.Puttaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. C/o. Mariyamma Om
Judgment 2 C.C.No.26958/2018
Shakthi Temple,
Ganapathipura,
Chunchaghatta Main Road,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec,. 387, 506 of IPC.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 12.02.2021 accused is
pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 21.04.2026
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused is Acquitted
Date of Order 21.04.2026
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police
Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable U/sec,.387, 506 of IPC.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.26958/2018
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, on 07-09-2016 Subramanyapura police
station in Crime No. 556/2016, U/sec., 143, 3 364(2) 384,
504, 506 R/w sec., 149 In the said case, the accused was sent
to judicial custody, the accused who was currently in judicial
custody. Further, on 24-10-2016 between 02-27 PM from the
Phone Number : 7795099107 00 and on 19-11-2016 between
02-21 PM from Mobile No : 9986044527 to Mobile Phone No.
9611381626 of Cw.1, the accused called the Cw.1 and asked
the Cw.1 to withdraw the complaint he had filed against the
accused and further asked the Cw.1 to give the money of
Rs.5,62,500/- for the complaint he had filed and given life
threat to the Cw.1 and thereby the accused has committed the
above said offences punishable U/sec,.387, 506 of IPC.
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the
offence punishable U/sec,.387, 506 of IPC against the
accused. The accused was released on bail. Copy of the
prosecution papers furnished to the accused as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been
Judgment 4 C.C.No.26958/2018
framed and read over to the accused wherein he has denied
the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.1 to 3 witnesses, this
court repeatedly issued Summons and Proclamation, even
though taken the sufficient time given to the concerned police,
they have failed to secure these witnesses. Moreover, this case
is 09 years old one. Hence, the said witnesses are dropped
after given sufficient opportunities to the prosecution. In this
regard this court relied on the following Hon’ble High Court,
full bench Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed in
The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24
March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it
held as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been
referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely,
whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a
Magistrate can acquit the accused if the
prosecution fails to apply for the issue of
summons to any witness and does not produce
the witness for several hearings and does not
serve summons on the witnesses despite
having been granted sufficient opportunity to
serve the summons or to produce the witnesses,
is the one that directly arises for determination
Judgment 5 C.C.No.26958/2018in these appeals. The second question which
arises for determination by us incidentally is
whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused
under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
does not apply for the issue of summons to any
of the witnesses and does not produce the
witness for several hearings and does not serve
the summons on the witnesses despite having
been granted sufficient opportunities to serve
the summons on the witnesses or to produce
the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though
the cases had been posted for hearing on
various dates and summons had been issued
to the witnesses for all the hearings, the
witnesses were not produced on any of the
hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued
that the case would be disposed of without
examining the witnesses if they are not
produced the prosecution did not choose to let
in any evidence and as such the Magistrate
found that the prosecution had no evidence to
let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
Judgment 6 C.C.No.26958/2018follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
what the reason was for non-appearance of the
witnesses, the court could legitimately come to
the conclusion that the police was not very
serious in prosecuting the offence which was a
minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate
can record an order of acquittal if there is no
evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the
prosecution did not take proper steps to
produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give
them time to do the same, or to issue fresh
summons, the court was not bound to fix
another date. The police has a duty towards
the citizen. When the accused is brought before
the court and the prosecuting department does
not take any steps it will be an abuse of the
process of the court to continue the trial.
Bringing a person before the court accusing him
of some offence is a serious matter and
however petty the offence may be, the
prosecuting department, must do its duty
towards the accused as well as the court. When
Judgment 7 C.C.No.26958/2018
once the accused is challaned there is no
privilege given to the police to remain absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions in
which it had been held that an acquittal of the
accused on the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State
v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v.
Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ
1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed
Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v.
Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of
Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v.
Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ
1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972
Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker);
State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965
Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai
Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ
1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v.
Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker);
Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad
25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960
Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR
Judgment 8 C.C.No.26958/2018
1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers
Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S.
Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR
1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan
Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these
decisions, there are the following decisions in
which it has been held that acquittal on the
ground of non-production of witnesses by the
prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the
Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under
Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
failed to produce their witnesses, a Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in
State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)’2 Cri
LJ 537 (2), as follows: “Where a charge Is
framed In a warrant case on police report, if
owing to the failure of the prosecution to
produce their witnesses and owing also to the
failure of the prosecution to make full
endeavour to serve the summonses according
to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70
and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence
before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit
the accused under Section 251A (11).”
Judgment 9 C.C.No.26958/2018
” In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti
1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v.
Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR
1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v.
Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970
Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real
distinction between the two decisions is as to
whether there was remissness and want of
diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency
in producing the witnesses before the Court
and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case applied to the facts of the
case with which the Division Bench was
concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case, it was found on the facts
that the prosecution was not at all diligent as
the non-bailable warrants issued to the
witnesses had neither been served nor
returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
warrants on the witnesses and return the
same the Magistrate would be justified in
refusing to grant an adjournment and to
proceed to acquit the accused on the material
Judgment 10 C.C.No.26958/2018
on record. We may note here that in State of
Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138
the Division Bench was dealing with a24. After
carefully considering all the aforesaid
decisions and the views expressed therein, we
are of the view that if the prosecution had
made an application for the issue of summons
to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or
254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the
duty of the court to issue summons to the
prosecution witnesses and to secure the
witnesses by exercising all the powers given to
it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as
already indicated by us and if still the
presence of the witnesses could not be secured
and the prosecution also either on account of
pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does
not produce the witnesses after the Court had
given it sufficient time and opportunities to do
so, then the Court, being left with no other
alternative would be justified in acquitting the
accused for want of evidence to prove the
prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C.,
in the case of warrant cases instituted on a
police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C.
in summons cases, and we answer the two
questions referred to us in the above terms.
Judgment 11 C.C.No.26958/2018
Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.1 to
3 witnesses are dropped, they are not secured since long time.
Further, the Cw.6 is given up as prayed by the Lr.Sr.APP. In
order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined 02 witnesses out of 07 witnesses, as PW.1 to 3 and
04 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.
05. Thereafter examination of accused under Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused had denied the incriminating
evidence in the prosecution case and not chosen to lead his
side evidence. No documents are got marked on his behalf.
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable that, on 07-09-
2016 Subramanyapura police station in
Crime No. 556/2016, U/sec., 143, 3
364(2) 384, 504, 506 R/w sec., 149 In the
said case, the accused was sent to
judicial custody, the accused who was
Judgment 12 C.C.No.26958/2018
currently in judicial custody. Further, on
24-10-2016 between 02-27 PM from the
Phone Number : 7795099107 00 and on
19-11-2016 between 02-21 PM from
Mobile No : 9986044527 to Mobile Phone
No. 9611381626 of Cw.1, the accused
called the Cw.1 and asked the Cw.1 to
withdraw the complaint he had filed
against the accused and thereby the
accused has committed an offence
punishable U/sec,. 387 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable that, further
the accused given life threat to Cw.1 and
thereby the accused has committed an
offence punishable U/sec,. 506 of IPC?
3. What order.?
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : In The Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.26958/2018
REASONS
09. Point No.1: These points are inter connected to each
other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid
repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the
prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this
judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to
appreciate the evidence on records.
10. The Cw.6 Sampath Kumar, who is examined Pw.1
and police HC witness in this case, he has deposed in his
evidence before the court that, On 15.12.2016, he was posted
for day duty and when he reported to the police station at
08.30 am, Cw.7 asked him and Cw-6 to go to the jail and bring
the accused to the court. Accordingly, he went to the central
office and brought the said accused to the court and then took
the said accused safely to the police station.
11. The Cw.7 Vajramuni, who is examined Pw.2 and IO
in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court
that, On 11.12.2016 at 03:30 PM, when he was in charge of
the police station, he received the computerized complaint
given by Cw-1 and registered a case and submitted the report
Judgment 14 C.C.No.26958/2018to the Honorable Court and the superiors. Then on
15.12.2016, a body warrant was issued against the accused in
the Honorable Court, Cw-5 and 6 went to the Central Jail,
caught the accused and produced him before the Honorable
Court and then produced him before him. Then on
06.12.2016, he went to the Central Jail along with the
accused, submitted a petition to the Central Jail
Superintendent there and then conducted a panchanama with
the accused in the presence of the accused, Cw-3 and 4, in
Room 6, 1st floor, behind the separate security, from 03-00 to
04-00 in the afternoon. The mobile number used by the
accused in the said case has not been found. Then he
produced the accused before the Honorable Court. On the
same day, he recorded the statement of Cw-2. Later, as the
investigation was completed, he submitted a final report to the
honorable court and the superiors as the charges against the
accused were prima facie proven.
Further the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in nothing worthwhile
elicited from his mouth.
Judgment 15 C.C.No.26958/2018
12. The Cw.4 Suresh K Melmane, who is examined Pw.3
and ASI of JC of Gokak, he has deposed in his evidence before
the court that, On 16.12.2016 at 03:00 PM, Cw.7 along with
his staff came to the accused at Room No. 6, 1st Floor, behind
maximum security, with a search warrant. After that, the
accused was searched in the said room and no mobile phone
or other items were found. After that, a panchanama was
conducted in the said room and his signature was obtained.
Further the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in nothing worthwhile
elicited from his mouth.
13. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable
doubt, the accused No.1 cannot be held guilty of the alleged
offence.
14. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.1 to 3
respectively this court issued so many times summons and
proclamation. In spite of the sufficient time given to the police,
they have failed to secure these witnesses and Cw.1 to 3
witnesses are dropped. Moreover, the non examination of the
Judgment 16 C.C.No.26958/2018
materials witness is fatal to the prosecution case. As such the
case against the accused is certainly would be entitled to
benefit of the doubt. Regarding this I relied on the following
Judgment held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR 2016 SC 4581
in para 56, Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
”56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion
however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that
the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge
cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ”may be
true”’ but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of
”must be true”. In a criminal prosecution, the court has
a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do
not take the place of legal proof and in a situation
where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the
backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent
miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended
to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be
reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or
non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial,
prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone
of reason and common sense. It is also a primary
postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views
are possible on the evidence available one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”
15. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and in the present case, it is
important to note that the IO’s witnesses and police HC
Judgment 17 C.C.No.26958/2018
witness has not proved the alleged commission of the offence
by the accused with corroborative evidence. As such the
accused has certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt,
since no corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the
accused to prove the prosecution case. Moreover, non
examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution
case. By considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly
failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. Therefore, with the above observations, I
Answer to the Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
16. Point No.3: In view of the Negative findings on the
above Point No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
In the excise of powers Confirmed
U/sec,.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is
hereby Acquitted for the alleged offences
punishable U/sec,.387, 506 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused and surety
extended for further 6 months in order to
Judgment 18 C.C.No.26958/2018
comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this
bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by
me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 21st day of April-2026)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. Sampath Kumar
P.W.2 : Sri. Vajramuni
P.W.3 : Sri. Suresh.K
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Computerized Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.4 : Accused self statement
Judgment 19 C.C.No.26958/2018
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Digitally
NIL signed by
THIMMAIAH G
THIMMAIAH
G Date:
2026.05.02
12:21:54
+0530(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B’lore.
Judgment 20 C.C.No.26958/2018
