Bangalore District Court
Subramanya Pura Ps vs A1-Ramappa on 27 April, 2026
KABC030260652018
Presented on : 12-04-2018
Registered on : 18-05-2018
Decided on : 27-04-2026
Duration : 8 years, 0 months, 15 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 27th Day of April-20256
:Present: Sri.Thimmaiah.G B.A. LLB.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.12752/2019
Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.
Date of Offence 30.06.2004
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
(R/by: Learned Senior APP)
V/s.
Accused Persons A5.Lakshman
S/o.Nanjappa,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. Talaghattapura,
Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru-62
Judgment 2 CC.No.12752/2018
A13.Ravi Kumar
S/o. Shankarappa,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at.No.Beside SGS Factory,
C/o. Deviyanna House,
Talaghattapura,
Bengaluru-62.
A21. Mahesh
S/o. Puttaswamy Gowda,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at.School Road,
Jayaram Building,
Doddakallasandra,
Bengaluru-62.
Offences U/sec,.143, 147, 148, 186, 341 R/w
sec., 149 of IPC
Plea/Charge Recorded on 25.03.2025 and accused
No.5, 13 and 21 are pleaded not guilty.
Final Oder Accused No.5, 13 and 21 are
Acquitted
Date of Order 27.04.2026
Thimmaiah.G
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 3 CC.No.12752/2018
JUDGMENT
The Accused persons are facing trial for the charge sheet
submitted by the Subramanyapura police for the offences
punishable U/sec,.143, 147, 148, 186, 341 R/w sec., 149 of
IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:
It is alleged that, On 30.06.2004, between 12:30 and
03:30 in the afternoon, the accused persons formed an illegal
group with the common intention of committing a crime at
the Metal Closures Factory on Kanakapura Main Road within
the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police Station. Further,
the accused persons illegally restrained honest workers from
going to work from the above said factory with the intention
of causing a rioted with deadly weapons holding in their
hands and obstructed their duties and thereby the accused
persons have committed the above said alleged offences
which is punishable U/sec,.143, 147, 148, 186, 341 R/w
sec., 149 of IPC.
03. During the pendency of the case, the case against
the accused No.5, 13 & 21 are split up in C.C.No.14614/2005
and filed separate charge sheet against accused No.5, 13 &
21. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the
Judgment 4 CC.No.12752/2018
offences punishable U/sec,.143, 147, 148, 186, 341 R/w
sec., 149 of IPC against the accused No.5, 13 & 21. The
accused No.5, 13 & 21 were released on bail. Copy of the
prosecution papers furnished to the accused No.5, 13 & 21
as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
04. The accused No.4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 22, 25, 29 &
30 are acquitted in the original C.C.No.14614/2005, as per
the order dated:13.12.2017. Further, the accused No. 1 to 3,
6, 7,10,14 to 17, 19, 20, 23, 24 & 26 to 28, 30 to 33 are split
in CC.No.30520/2024 and filed separate charge sheet against
them and now the Learned Sr.APP filed memo to adopt the
evidence of the witnesses deposed in the said original
C.C.No.14614/2005. On the other hand counsel of the
accused No.5, 13 & 21 has given consent to the same.
Accordingly this court considered the same.
05. In order to secure the Cw.16 to 21 witnesses, this
court issued Summons and Proclamation. But even though
the sufficient time give to the concerned police, the concerned
police failed to secure these witnesses. In this regard 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:
Judgment 5 CC.No.12752/2018
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 in 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
Judgment 6 CC.No.12752/2018
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
follows: “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
Judgment 7 CC.No.12752/2018
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 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
Judgment 8 CC.No.12752/2018
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 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
Judgment 9 CC.No.12752/2018
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).”
” 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
Judgment 10 CC.No.12752/2018
Magistrate would be justified in refusing to
grant an adjournment and to proceed to
acquit the accused on the material 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 CC.No.12752/2018
Hence, Cw.16 to 21, witnesses are dropped. Further the
Cw.7 to 10 & 12 to 14 witnesses are given up as prayed by
the Lr.Sr.APP. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.5,
13 & 21, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as PW.1
to PW.4 out of 21 witnesses and got marked 03 documents
as Ex.P.1 to P.3.
06. Thereafter examination of the accused No.5, 13 &
21 U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused No.5, 13 &
21 have denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution
case and not chosen to lead their side evidence. No
documents are got marked on their behalf.
07. Heard both sides and perused the evidence
available on record.
08. Upon hearing arguments advanced from both sides
and on perusal of materials placed on record, following points
arise for consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, On 30.06.2004, between
12:30 and 03:30 in the afternoon, the accused
persons formed an illegal group with the common
intention of committing a crime at the Metal
Closures Factory on Kanakapura Main Road
Judgment 12 CC.No.12752/2018
within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police
Station and thereby accused persons have
committed the offence punishable U/sec,.143 R/w
sec., 149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, further, the accused
persons illegally restrained honest workers from
going to work from the above said factor and
thereby accused persons have committed the
offence punishable U/sec,.341 R/w sec., 149 of
IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, further, the accused
persons illegally restrained honest workers from
going to work from the above said factory with the
intention of causing a rioted with deadly weapons
holding in their hands and obstructed their duties
and thereby accused persons have committed the
offence punishable U/sec,.147, 148 & 186 R/w
sec., 149 of IPC?
4. What order.?
09. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
Judgment 13 CC.No.12752/2018
REASONS
10. POINTS NO.1 TO 3:- These points are inter
connected to each other and have taken for discussion in
common to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence.
Further, I am of the opinion that, I need not repeat the entire
case of the complaint here also, since I have already narrated
the same at the inception of this judgment.
11. The accused No.4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 22, 25, 29 &
30 are acquitted in the original C.C.No.14614/2005, as per
the order dated:13.12.2017. Further, the accused No. 1 to 3,
6, 7,10,14 to 17, 19, 20, 23, 24 & 26 to 28, 30 to 33 are split
in CC.No.30520/2024 and filed separate charge sheet against
them and now the Learned Sr.APP filed memo to adopt the
evidence of the witnesses deposed in the said original
C.C.No.14614/2005. On the other hand counsel of the
accused No.5, 13 & 21 has given consent to the same.
Accordingly this court considered the same. Under such
circumstances, such evidence this court can be considered.
In support of the same, I relied on the Judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, reported in Criminal
Petition No.6129 of 2024, dated: 24.07.2024, passed in
Chethan V/s State of Karnataka and Others, where it is
held as follows:
Judgment 14 CC.No.12752/2018
” 9. The reason for acquitting the other
accused as afore- quoated is the fact that
the complainant himself had turned hostile
and other witnesses had not supported the
charge sheet. If the complainant had turned
hostile and it said that the same would be
applicable to the petitioner as well,
notwithstanding the fact that he was not
available for trial. It is not the case of
sending the petitioner for trial for the very
same offences and result being the same as
is ordered on 01.12.2021 in
S.C.No.103/2018. It would be an exercise in
futility to permit further trial, which would
be of no utility and be a waste of judicial
time.
Thus, in the present case on hand, in the original
CC.No.14614/2005, passed the judgment dated: 13.12.2017
as acquitted against the accused No.4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 22,
25, 29 & 30. Under such circumstances, It would be an
exercise in a futility to permit further trial, which would be of
no utility and be a waste of judicial time. Therefore,
considering the trial which is held in the original
CC.No.14614/2005 and also judgment passed in the same
case.
12. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.16 to 21,
respectively this court issued summons and proclamation. In
Judgment 15 CC.No.12752/2018
spite of the sufficient time given to the police, the concerned
police have failed to secure these witnesses and Cw.16 to 21,
are dropped. Further the Cw.7 to 10 & 12 to 14 witnesses are
given up as prayed by the Lr.Sr.APP.
13. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused No.5, 13 & 21 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all
reasonable doubt, the accused No.5, 13 & 21 an not be held
guilty of the alleged offences.
14. The Cw.1 EA.Baig, who is examined as Pw.1 and in
his evidence he deposed before the court that, who was
present at the time of occurrence of this case. In his main
inquiry on 30.06.2004 at 12.30 pm, while on patrol, he got
information that, the striking workers were disrupting the
work of other workers near the Metal Closure Company – and
as the number of striking workers increased, he informed the
superiors and sub station to send more personnel and force
for bandhobast. He said that, he went to the crime scene and
arrested 27 workers who were on strike and brought them to
the police station. On the same day, a search operation was
carried out as per Ex. P3 and the statements of witnesses
and staff were recorded. But he deposed that, he bought he
the striking workers to the police station not the people who
were gathered and making roit in front of the factory.
Judgment 16 CC.No.12752/2018
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.5,13 &
21 has cross examined the said witness, where in he stated
that, there are 300 laborers were involved in the roit on that
day and it is not possible to say which accused did what. In
this case, it is not clear from his evidence that the which
accused persons in front of this court had committed an
crime against the law on that day. Hence, his evidence is not
helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
No.5, 13 & 21.
15. The Cw.6 Chandrashekar, who is examined as
Pw.2, the Cw.11 Smt. Malini, who is examined as Pw.3, the
Cw.15 Jayaprakash, who is examined as Pw.4, they deposed
in his evidence before the court that, on that day 27 persons
were arrested and came to the police station on the orders of
ACP. But the names of the accused persons, who are before
the court in the roit cannot be mentioned and they can not
tell which accused had committed which act. Hence, their
evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution case. As such
the accused No.5,13 & 21 have certainly would be entitled to
benefit of the doubt.
On this point 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
Judgment 17 CC.No.12752/2018that 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.”
14. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and the accused No.5,13 &
21 are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that, the evidence of Pw.1
to 4, the accused No.5,13 & 21 have committed illegal
conspiracy. Taking into account the evidence of the accused,
there is a lack of suitable and adequate evidence to conclude
that the accused have committed a crime against the law as
alleged by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed
Judgment 18 CC.No.12752/2018
to prove the alleged offences committed by the accused
No.5,13 & 21 as stated in the Ex.P1 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, I answer to the Points No.1 to 3 in the
Negative.
15. POINT NO.4: In view of the above findings on Point
No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
In the exercise of powers Confirmed
U/sec,. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused
No.5, 13 and 21 are hereby Acquitted
for the alleged offences punishable
U/sec.,143, 147, 148, 341, 506, 189
R/w sec., 149 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.5, 13 and
21 and surety extended for further 6
months in order to comply Sec.437A of
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond
automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by
me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of April- 2026)
(Thimmaiah G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 19 CC.No.12752/2018
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. EA.Baig
P.W.2 : Sri. Chandrashekar Achari
P.W.3 : Smt. Malini
P.W.4 : Sri. Jayaprakash
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Pw.1
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Digitally signed
by THIMMAIAH
NIL THIMMAIAH G
G Date:
2026.05.21
16:40:18 +0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 20 CC.No.12752/2018
Judgment 21 CC.No.12752/2018
Judgment 22 CC.No.12752/2018
