Skip to content


Rama Vs. Superintendent of Police, Kolar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Constitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 1473 of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Kant220; AIR1967Mys220; 1967CriLJ1543
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 20(2) and 311; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 408; Mysore Prohibition Act - Sections 76
AppellantRama
RespondentSuperintendent of Police, Kolar and anr.
Appellant AdvocateM. Rama Jois, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.K. Shyam Sundar, Adv. for ;E.S. Venkataramiah, High Court Special Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
.....power and authority to issue administrative directions for the filing of cases or institution of proceedings at such place or places. by that process, there will be no territorial bifurcation of the high court of karnataka. after all, the courts are for the benefit of the litigant public and hence their convenience should be the paramount consideration. the impugned notification is a positive and concrete step to achieve the goal of providing easy and less expensive access to justice. article 229; [cyriac joseph, cj & a.n.venugopala gowda, jj] power of chief justice to allocate the work - held, it is a prerogative. exercise of such power cannot be held to be illegal. -- states re-organisation act, 1956. sections 51 & 51(3); notification no. rps.117/2004, dated 4.6.2008 establishing..........declined to participate in the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that there was an impending criminal prosecution against him in respect of the same matter in consequence, the disciplinary proceedings has proceeded ex parte up to a particular stage 3. the argument maintained by mr. rama jois on behalf of the petitioner is that the contemplated criminal prosecution is an impediment to the commencement of a disciplinary proceeding. it was said that the evidence which was proposed to be produced against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding was identical with the evidence by which the offence under section 76 of the mysore prohibition act could be proved and there could not be a parallel disciplinary proceeding 4. this postulate is plainly unsupportable. what constitutes an.....
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. The petitioner who was a police constable in the Chickballapur town police station was charged with misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him. The allegation against him was that he infringed the provisions of the Prohibition Act and misbehaved with a merchant of Chickballapur town on February 14, 1964. It transpires that in respect of the offence stated to have been committed under the Mysore Prohibition Act, the Sub-Inspector registered a case against the petitioner under Section 76 of that Act, although no prosecution in respect of that offence has vet commenced .

2. We are told that the petitioner declined to participate in the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that there was an impending criminal prosecution against him in respect of the same matter in consequence, the disciplinary proceedings has proceeded ex parte up to a particular stage

3. The argument maintained by Mr. Rama Jois on behalf of the petitioner is that the contemplated criminal prosecution is an impediment to the commencement of a disciplinary proceeding. It was said that the evidence which was proposed to be produced against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding was identical with the evidence by which the offence under Section 76 of the Mysore Prohibition Act could be proved and there could not be a parallel disciplinary proceeding

4. This postulate is plainly unsupportable. What constitutes an impediment to a disciplinary proceeding is an acquittal in a criminal prosecution in respect of the same charge. If there be no such acquittal and even if a criminal prosecution has commenced and is continuing, a disciplinary proceeding in respect of an accusation which forms the subject matter of the charge in the Criminal Court is not forbidden and can be commenced and concluded so long as the prosecution has not ended in an acquittal. That is the principle clearly emerging from the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1980 SC 806

5. We dismiss this writ petition (6) No costs.

6. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //