- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6991 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1425 OF 2015 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU – 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H K KIRAN S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA, AGED 33 YEARS, HALAMUTHUR POST, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 126. 2. RAMESH S/O SHANKARAPPA GOWDA, AGED 32 YEARS, HARIHARAPURA, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 126. …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT SERVED, BUT UNREPRERSENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2015 THEREBY CLOSING THE CASE AND DISCHARGING ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 PASSED BY THE C.M.M. COURT, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.28552/2010 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 4 AND 5 OF I.T.P. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6991 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER 1. The State has preferred this revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the C.M.M. Court, Bangalore in C.C.No.28552/2010, wherein the Trial Court closed the case and discharged the accused Nos.1 and 2, by giving them the benefit of acquittal. 2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered accordingly for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.09.2005 at about 04.30 p.m., the respondent – Police have received an information that the accused were running / soliciting the prostitution at Hebbal Ring Road Junction. The riding party prepared the decoy witnesses and went to the spot and after observing that the above said respondents along with another person were standing in the public and calling for customers, therefore, the police sent the decoy witness with an instruction to signal them after verifying - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6991 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2015 with the accused about their activities. The decoy witness was also given two signed Rs.500/- notes. 4. It is further alleged that the decoy witness approached the accused and after becoming sure about the activities of the accused, gave signal to the riding party and the riding party encircled the accused persons and arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the accused No.3 ran away from the spot. After registering the case, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. The case came to be split up insofar as the accused Nos.1 and 2 and re-numbered as C.C.No.28552/2010. The case against the accused, who was arraigned as accused No.3, came to be acquitted and the respondents had also availed the same benefit and got acquitted. Hence, the case. 5. Heard Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner - State. The respondents though served, remained unrepresented. 6. It is the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader that the order of allowing the criminal case passed by the Trial Court is improper and illegal. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6991 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2015 Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for or contemplate any order of acquittal being recorded merely on the ground that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence on the date fixed by the Magistrate. 7. It is further submitted that the order of discharging the accused by giving the benefit of acquittal in the main case as the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the word ‘finds’, seems to have been used in the sense of ‘decides’, ‘concludes’ etc. 8. It is further submitted that once charge is framed, the Court has no power to cancel the charge or reverse the proceedings to the stage of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and discharge the accused. Once the charges are framed, the Trial Court is required to proceed with the trial to a logical end and pass an order, either acquittal or conviction. The order of discharging the accused on the basis that the prosecution has not produced the witness is not proper and appropriate. Hence, the said order has to be set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6991 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2015 9. Having heard the submissions of learned High Court Government Pleader, perused the order passed by the Trial Court, it appears from the record that in spite of issuance of summons to the witnesses, the said summons were not executed properly. The earlier case has been registered against the third accused and the said case has been split up and C.C.No.27712/2005 has been registered against accused No.3, the same has been ended in acquittal by its order dated 15.12.2010. However, as per the case of the prosecution that all the three persons were standing on the same footing. Since the witnesses have not turned up in spite of the efforts made by the Trial Court to secure their presence and proceed with the trial, extending the benefit of acquittal passed in any case to the respondents, in my considered view, is appropriate and proper. There is no infirmity in the said order. 10. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3