Skip to content


State of Mysore Vs. Ramiah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1968CriLJ1669
AppellantState of Mysore
RespondentRamiah and ors.
Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 173(8): [subhash b. adi, j] further investigation by police - death due to group clash cases booked against both the groups - charge-sheets were filed against respective accused - when case pending in sessions court representation made by mla of district to government seeking further investigation contending that earlier investigation was not property conducted - government ordered further investigation high court quashed permission granted by government - police filed application before sessions judge seeking permission for further investigation - sessions court granted permission - challenge as to - held, what is sought to be done in the case is the further investigation by the cod. it is not a case of reinvestigation or..........his complaint was registered. before the trial, it was reported that doddakavalappa died. the learned magistrate acquitted the petitioners under section 247 of the code of criminal procedure.some days later, gowramma, widow of the deceased doddakvalappa filed another complaint against the same petitioners for the same offence of which they had been acquitted. the learned magistrate registered the complaint in c.c. no. 872 of 1967 on 31.5.1967 and issued notice to the petitioners. from the facts stated above it is clear that the petitioners were acquitted under section 247, code of criminal procedure, in respect of the same facts and offences in c.c. no. 388 of 1967. acquittal under section 247 is an acquittal which bars further trial under section 403 of the code of criminal.....
Judgment:
ORDER

C. Honniah, J.

1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, recommending that the order dated 5.6.1967 in C.C. No. 872 of 1967 passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri, be set aside.

2. The facts that have given rise to this reference are these : One Doddakavalappa filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri under Sections 143, 448, 427, 506 and 323 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code. His complaint was registered. Before the trial, it was reported that Doddakavalappa died. The learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioners under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Some days later, Gowramma, widow of the deceased Doddakvalappa filed another complaint against the same petitioners for the same offence of which they had been acquitted. The learned Magistrate registered the complaint in C.C. No. 872 of 1967 on 31.5.1967 and issued notice to the petitioners. From the facts stated above it is clear that the petitioners were acquitted under Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the same facts and offences in C.C. No. 388 of 1967. Acquittal under Section 247 is an acquittal which bars further trial under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore the referenda is accepted and the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 5.6.1967 set aside.


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