- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200119 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN 1 . DEERENDRA JOSHI S/O JAGADISH NARAYANA AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF GAJANANA DECORATORS R/O. 12-10-97(97) NEAR GOVINDRAO PETROL BUNK, PARAS GARDEN RAICHUR 2 . ARUN JOSHI S/O NARAYANA JOSHI AGE 50 YEARS, OCC OWNER OF GAJANANA DECORATORS (AS PER POLICE RECORDS) R/O 12-10-97(97) NEAR GOVINDRAO PETROL BUNK, PARAS GARDEN, RAICHUR ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIVANAND V PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RAICHUR RURAL POLICE STATION DIST RAICHUR-584 101 R/BY ADDL SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C (OLD) / U/SEC. 438 OF BNSS ACT (NEW) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2024 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 169/2022 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR IN CRIME NO. 210/2018 RAICHUR RURAL P.S AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 286, 304-A AND 337 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE ACT, 1908 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2024 passed in S.C.No.169/2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, wherein the Trial Court rejected the application for discharge. 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, CW.1 has lodged a complaint stating that on 05.10.2018 at about 05.30 p.m., his wife Ananthamma and son Ramu were grazing their pigs nearby Parasavatika Colony at Yeramaras Camp. They were collecting the plastic papers at Panchali layout. They found one blue color plastic can. The informant asked his wife – Ananthamma, to open the plastic can. As per the said instruction, she took the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 can and tried to open the said can. However, all of a sudden, it exploded; resultantly, Ananthamma sustained grievous burn injuries all over her body and died on the spot. The informant and his son had also sustained injuries. 4. A complaint came to be registered before the respondent - Police in that regard. The respondent - Police have registered a case in Crime No. 210 of 2018. After conducting the investigation, they filed charge sheet. 5. Being aggrieved by the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after appreciating the material on record, rejected the application. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings recorded by the Trial Court in rejecting the discharge application are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law. 8. It is further submitted that the accused Nos.1 and 2 being the owners of Gajanana Decorators, have entrusted the work of decoration to CWs.35 and 36, who were their paid workers, and the entire work was carried out by them. The petitioners were not aware about the throwing of the can or any other substances at the spot. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case in order to harass them on one or the other pretext. Therefore, the application ought to have been allowed and the petitioners should have been discharged from the case. However, the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for discharge. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, Learned High Court Government pleader vehemently justified the order of rejection of discharge - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 application filed by the petitioners and submits that the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners. Prima-facie there is evidence against the accused that decoration work was entrusted to Gajanana Decorators to put tent at Manchali Layout for the purpose of performing the marriage. After the marriage, the employees of the petitioners did not clean the area properly and threw the waste along with some explosive items used for the purpose of decoration in the nearby place; consequently, it exploded when the deceased tried to open the said can. There are two eyewitnesses to the incident. Hence, it is not appropriate to discharge the petitioners at this stage. Making such submissions, Learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the findings of the Court below in dealing with the application. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No.10, held as under: 10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universe application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave 1 (1979) 3 SCC 4 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should made a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. 11. On reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is appropriate to determine a ‘prima facie case’. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose a grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. By and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him, while giving rise to some suspicion, but, not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. 12. Having considered the above-said principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the present case, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant against unknown persons. During investigation, the names of these petitioners were added to the charge sheet. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, though the petitioners were running a shop, namely Gajanana Decorators, there is no iota of evidence regarding their direct involvement in throwing the said explosives in the open place. Even on reading of the entire charge sheet averments, it would be very difficult to bring the petitioners within the parameters of the above said principle for the reason that, the Investigating Officer has not cited any eyewitnesses in support of throwing of the explosive substance by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 petitioners, after the programme got over, into the field. Such being the fact, allowing the petitioners to face the trial, even in the absence of material witnesses, it would be considered an abuse of process of law and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not appropriate to proceed against these petitioners in the said case. Hence, the order of the Trial Court has to be set-aside. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 24.06.2024 in S.C.No.169/2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Crime No.210/2018 of Raichur Rural police station, is hereby set aside. iii) The petitioners are discharged for the offences under Sections 286, 337 and 304A of Indian - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3455 CRL.RP No. 200119 of 2024 Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3