Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Fahad @ Nadutani @ Mohammed Koy on 8 April, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2002 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION
MYSORE
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-I ALONG WITH
SRI RAHUL RAI K., H.C.G.P.)
AND:
Digitally FAHAD @ NADUTANI @ MOHAMMED KOY
signed by
ANJALI M S/O. ABDULLA HAI @ ABDULLA KOYA
Location: AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
High Court
of Karnataka OCC.: MASON
RESIDENT OF NO.K-314, F BLOCK
NORTH NAZIMA BAGH KARACHI
PAKISTAN
AT PRESENT:
RESIDNG AT NO.186, 4TH CROSS
2ND STAGE, RAJIVNAGAR
UDAYAGIRI
MYSORE-570 019.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
***
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 19-6-2023 PASSED IN
SPL.C.C.NO.106 OF 2015 ON THE COURT OF THE LEARNED CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, THEREBY ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 121 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL
AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
The State has preferred this appeal, feeling
aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 19.06.2023
passed by the Court of the Principal City Civil and Sessions
Judge at Bengaluru in Spl.CC.No.106/2015 acquitting
respondent No.1/accused No.1 of the charge framed under
Section 121 of IPC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. Heard both sides and perused the material on
record, including the impugned judgment.
3. Charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 20
in connection with Crime No.165/2006 of Vijayanagar
Police Station, Mysore, for offences punishable under
Section 120B, 121, 121-A, 332, 353, 417, 419, 465, 471
r/w Section 114 of IPC, Sections 10, 16 and 20 of Unlawful
Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 25(d), 25(1B)
(a), (d) & (f), 27(2) and 28 of Indian Arms Act, 1959,
Section 14(A) & (B) of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 5
of Foreigners Registration Act, Section 3 of Entry into India
Regulations of 1950, Sections 12, 15(a) and (b) of
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
4. Initially, the case was on the file of III Additional
District and Sessions Judge Mysore, numbered as
S.C.No.81/2007. Case against accused Nos.9 to 20 was
split up as they were absconding and a separate split up
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
case came to be registered in C.C.No.208/2007 against
them. Against accused Nos.1 to 8, the case was
committed for trial and charges were framed against
them. Accused Nos.4 to 8 were discharged from the case
by this Court. Hence, the trial proceeded only against
accused Nos.1 to 3. Later, the entire records were
transferred to the Court of the Prl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, at Bangalore in view of the application filed under
Section 43(2) and Section 43 (1) (c) of PML Act.
Thereafter, Spl.C.C.No.106/2015 came to be registered. In
the meanwhile, accused No.3 died and therefore, case
against him was dismissed as abated. Again, case against
accused No.2 came to be split up and registered as
Spl.C.C.No.339/2017 and the trial continued only against
the respondent/accused No.1.
5. In Spl.C.C.No.106/2015, the respondent/accused
No.1 was held guilty of the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 121, 121-A, 332, 353, 465 and 471 of IPC,
Section 25(d), 25(1B)(a), (d) & (f), Section 27(2) and 28
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
of Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 14(A) & (B) of
Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 5 of Foreigners
Registration Act, 1939. Separate sentences were imposed
except under Section 121 of IPC.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent did not
challenge the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court. He has undergone the entire sentence imposed in
Spl.C.C.No.106/2015. However, the State preferred
Criminal Appeal.No.48/2022 challenging the judgment and
order insofar as not passing any sentence against the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 121 of
IPC. This Court allowed the said appeal in-part vide
judgment dated 20.02.2023 and while remanding the
matter to the trial Court, observed that the learned
Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding with regard
to sanction under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. and not passed
any sentence for the offence punishable under Section 121
of IPC nor whispered about the said provision.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
7. After remand, the learned Sessions Judge vide
impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent/accused
No.1 of the charge framed under Section 121 of IPC, on
the ground that there was no sanction obtained as
required under Section 196(1)(a) of Cr.P.C to take
cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 121
of IPC.
8. This Court while remanding the matter has
specifically observed that the matter requires to be
remanded to the learned Sessions Judge for passing fresh
orders on the basis of the evidence already on record,
without giving room for recording any further evidence.
9. There is a bar for taking cognizance of certain
offences enumerated in sub-clause (a) to (c) of Section
196(1) of Cr.P.C.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
Section 196(1) Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
Section 196(1) in The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973:-
(1)No Court shall take cognizance of –
(a)any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under
section 153-A, [section 295-A or sub-section (1) of
section 505] [Substituted by Act 63 of 1980, Section 3,
for “Section 153-B, Section 295-A or Section 505” (w.e.f.
23.9.1980).] of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in section 108-A
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the
previous sanction of the Central Government or of the
State Government.[(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance
of -(a)any offence punishable under section 153-B or
sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 of the
Indian Penal Code, or(b)a criminal conspiracy to commit
such offence, except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government or of the State Government or of
the District Magistrate.]
10. It is not in dispute that the offences under
Sections 121 to 130 of IPC are the offences against the
State mentioned in Chapter VI of IPC. Section 196(1)(a)
provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under Chapter VI or under Sections
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
153A, 295A or sub-section (1) of Section 505 of Indian
Penal Code.
11. As contemplated under the said provisions, no
Court shall take cognizance of any offences punishable
under Chapter VI of IPC, except with the previous sanction
of the Central Government or of the State Government.
12. In the case on hand, the prosecution has
obtained two sanction orders, i.e. one at Ex.P161 and
another at Ex.P164. Ex.P161 is the sanction issued to
prosecute the accused for the offences under the Arms
Act, 1959 and Ex.P164 is a sanction issued to prosecute
the accused for the offences under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Passports Act, 1957.
Undisputedly, there is no sanction obtained to prosecute
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 121
of IPC as required under Section 196(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. The
learned Sessions Judge has considered the said aspect.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:19402-DB
CRL.A No. 2002 of 2024
HC-KAR
13. The trial Court after assigning reasons has passed
the impugned judgment acquitting the
respondent/accused No.1 of the charge framed under
Section 121 of IPC. There is no illegality committed by the
trial Court. No grounds are made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN, KVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
