THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs K. ARUNPRASAD BIN KRISHNAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 990 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SAGARA TOWN POLICE,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
1. K. ARUNPRASAD
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
OWNER OF RICEMILL,
R/O. YADEHALLI VILLAGE,
ANANDAPURAM HOBLI,
SAGARA TALUK-577 401.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. A N RADHAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P.
FOR THE STATE/APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.02.2016
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR IN
C.C.NO.591/2006 IN ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 177 AND 181 OF IPC.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)
and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking leave
to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 23.02.2016
passed in CC No.591 of 2006 by the Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sagar (for short, the “trial Court”), whereby the accused
was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 177
and 181 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As this appeal was
pending as on 01.07.2024, it is governed by the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in view of Section
531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sagar
Town Police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 177 and 181 of the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged by the prosecution that
on 07.05.1990, the accused, though not belonging to a
Scheduled Caste community, furnished false information to the
Tahsildar, Sagar Taluk stating that he belongs to the Mogera
caste, which is a Scheduled Caste, and thereby obtained a
caste certificate. Thus, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offences punishable under Sections 177 and 181 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. After the filing of the charge-sheet, the Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sagar took cognizance of the offences and
registered the case in CC No.590 of 2000. As per order dated
14.09.2006 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and
CJM, Shimogga, the case was withdrawn and transferred to
Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Sagar, and renumbered
as CC No.591 of 2006 and summons were issued. In response
to the summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and
was enlarged on bail. Upon hearing, the trial Court framed
charges against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
same were read over and explained to the accused in the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
language known to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got
marked 19 documents as Exhibits P1 to P19. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, the statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was
recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence
appearing against him, but did not choose to lead any defence
evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both
sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved
by the Judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this
appeal.
5. Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the State, would submit that
the Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary
to evidence and material on record and the same is liable to be
set aside. He would submit that the prosecution has examined
PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 and all these witnesses have supported the
case of prosecution and categorically given statement about the
accused obtaining certificate by giving false documents. Hence
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In spite of the same, the trial Court has disbelieved the
evidence of prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused on
erroneous grounds. He would further submit that the trial Court
failed to appreciate the fact that the accused knowing fully well
that he does not belong to Mogera community coming under
Scheduled Caste, has furnished false information and
documents and obtained the caste certificate, which fact is
clear from the statement of witnesses examined by the
prosecution. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the
appeal.
6. As against this, Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, would submit
that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on
record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there
are no grounds to interfere with the Judgment of acquittal and
hence sought for dismissal of appeal.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following points would arise for consideration:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
1) Whether the trial Court was justified in taking
cognizance of the offences punishable under
Sections 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 on the basis of a police report, in view of
the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
2) Whether the State has made out a ground to
grant leave to appeal and to interfere with the
impugned Judgment of acquittal?
3) What order?
8. My answers to the above points are:
Points No.1 & 2: In the negative;
Point No.3: as per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
9. I have examined the materials placed before the
Court. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused has
committed the offences punishable under Sections 177 and 181
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per the First Schedule to
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offences punishable
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
under Sections 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
are non-cognizable and bailable. At this juncture, it is relevant
to refer to Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, which reads thus:
“ Section 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful
authority of public servants, for offences against public
justice and for offences relating to documents given in
evidence.—(1) No Court shall take cognizance—
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172
to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit,
such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such
offence, except on the complaint in writing of
the public servant concerned or of some other
public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both
inclusive) and 228, when such offence is
alleged to have been committed in, or in
relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or
punishable under section 471, section 475 or
section 476 of the said Code, when such
offence is alleged to have been committed in
respect of a document produced or given in
evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or
attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any
offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause
(ii), except on the complaint in writing of that
Court or by such officer of the Court as that
Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or
of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate. ”
10. A reading of Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, makes it clear that no Court shall
take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172
to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or of
the abetment of, attempt to commit, or criminal conspiracy to
commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some other public servant to
whom he is administratively subordinate. The requirement of a
complaint in writing of the Court concerned, or of some other
Court to which that Court is subordinate, applies only to the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
offences enumerated in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which relate to proceedings in any
Court. Sections 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 fall
within Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and
therefore Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 squarely applies to the present case. The bar
under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 is mandatory, and cognizance taken in contravention of it,
renders the proceedings void.
11. It is also relevant to refer to the definition of
“complaint” under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, together with the Explanation thereto, which
reads as under:
Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.—
“
“Complaint” means any allegation made orally or
in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action
under this Code, that some person, whether known or
unknown, has committed an offence, but does not
include a police report.
Explanation.—A report made by a police officer in
a case which discloses, after investigation, the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed
to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such
report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;
”
12. In the case on hand, the information alleged to be
false was furnished to the Tahsildar, Sagar Taluk. The Tahsildar
is, therefore, the public servant concerned within the meaning
of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. However, the proceedings were initiated on the charge-
sheet filed by the Sagar Town Police. Neither the Tahsildar nor
any other public servant to whom the Tahsildar is
administratively subordinate, has lodged any complaint in
writing against the accused before the Magistrate, as required
under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. Even if the charge-sheet filed in respect of the non-
cognizable offences punishable under Sections 177 and 181 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is treated as a complaint by virtue
of the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the complainant would be the police officer
who filed the report, and not the public servant concerned.
Such a report does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of
Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
Without applying his mind to the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offences, which is not sustainable in law.
For the reasons aforestated, the learned Magistrate was not
justified in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under
Sections 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
13. When there is a bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to take cognizance on the
basis of a police report, the cognizance taken and the entire
proceedings initiated on the charge-sheet filed by the Sagar
Town Police are vitiated, being without jurisdiction. The trial
Court nonetheless took cognizance of the offences and, after
trial, acquitted the accused for the reasons assigned therein.
Since the very initiation of the prosecution is barred under
Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
no conviction could have been recorded in these proceedings,
and the question of reversing the acquittal, on merits, does not
arise. Even otherwise, in an appeal against acquittal, the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58798
CRL.A No. 990 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010250772016
presumption of innocence available to the accused stands
reinforced by the acquittal, and this Court would interfere only
where the view taken by the trial Court is perverse or is not a
possible view on the evidence. On careful examination of the
entire material on record, I do not find that the conclusion of
the trial Court in acquitting the accused suffers from any
perversity or illegality warranting interference. The State has,
therefore, not made out any ground to grant leave to appeal
under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.3:
For the reasons aforestated and discussions, I proceed to
pass the following:
O R D E R
Leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC
is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55