Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chennakeshava vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.294/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHENNAKESHAVA
S/O LATE B.C.MUDDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT ASHA TOWN LAYOUT,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE CITY-560077. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI KUMARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BMTF POLICE STATION,
BBMP, BENGALURU,
BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING
PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU (COURT HALL-I)
IN LGC (T) NO.147/2023 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 AND
DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 192(A) OF KLR ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.12.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional SPP for the respondent-State.
2. This revision petition is filed against rejection of
discharge application filed by the revision petitioner vide order
dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing
Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that BMTF Police
Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 192-A of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under Section 420 of IPC. The
allegation against the petitioner is that he had indulged in the
3
act of land grabbing and the Police investigated the matter and
filed the charge sheet. Hence, application is filed for discharge.
4. While seeking discharge, main contention of the
petitioner is that without verifying the title deeds, the Revenue
Inspector has given the report and on the basis of the report,
the Police registered the case, investigated the matter and filed
the charge sheet. Even in the charge sheet, the extent of
encroachment and survey numbers have not been stated. It is
further contended that he is not the owner of survey numbers
mentioned in the charge sheet and also contend that Land
Grabbing Court has no jurisdiction to try the offence punishable
under the Indian Penal Code and this Court can try only the
offence under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
It is also contended that when the Court does not have any right
to proceed against the petitioner, ought to have discharged the
petitioner.
5. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the application contending that on plain reading of Section 2(f)
of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 ('the Act'
4
for short), it clearly goes to show that every activity of grabbing
of any land without any lawful entitlement amounts to land
grabbing and, in that light, accused without there being any
entitlement has fabricated the documents with an intention to
grab the Government land and as such, this Court is having
jurisdiction to try the case. It is further contended that as per
Section 3 of the Act, the land grabbing in any form is prescribed
and declared unlawful and any activity connected with or arising
out of the land grabbing shall be an offence punishable under the
Act and there are sufficient material that he has committed the
offence punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 as well as the ingredients of the offence
under Section 420 of IPC.
6. The Land Grabbing Court, having considered the
grounds and material on record, particularly the charge sheet
allegations and also when the contention was taken that IPC
offence cannot be invoked, invoked Section 2(f) of the Act and
extracted the same in paragraph No.12 of the order. Having
taken note of the same and Section 3 of the Act and also
5
considering the charge sheet filed for the offence punishable
under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
and Section 420 of IPC and so also Section 9(1) of the Act,
comes to the conclusion that it can try the offence under Section
420 of IPC which is arising out of the alleged act of land
grabbing or to grab the land and extracting Section 9(1) of the
Act comes to the conclusion that this Court can try the offence
under Section 420 of IPC and it will not take away the
jurisdiction of this Court, that too, when Section 3 of the Act
clearly shows that any activity connected with or arising out of
land grabbing shall be an offence punishable under the Act and
dismissed the discharge application. Being aggrieved by the said
order of dismissal, present revision petition is filed before this
Court.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court is that Land Grabbing Court failed to
notice that the prosecution has filed final report/charge sheet
without verifying the ownership of the alleged lands in question,
admittedly the concerned survey officials themselves are not
6
sure about the ownership of the property, in the survey report,
the survey official stated that the ownership of the lands should
be ascertained by the Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector and
the Tahsildar. When such report was given, the question of
accused had encroached the lands and formed the layout,
without ascertaining the ownership of the alleged lands is
erroneous and the Land Grabbing Court failed to take note of the
said fact into consideration and without identifying the
boundaries and Kharab and without ascertaining the true facts,
the revenue officials have given false report stating that the
accused has encroached 'B' Kharab lands and the same is
erroneous. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend
that, admittedly, charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable
under Section 192-A of the Act and 420 of IPC. Hence, the Land
Grabbing Court has no jurisdiction to try/conduct the case in
view of the judgment reported in (2015) 0 SUPREME (MAD)
209. The complainant-Police have foisted false case against the
petitioner. Learned counsel would contend that the Land
Grabbing Court failed to take note of the fact that when there is
no material, ought to have discharged the petitioner from the
7
said case. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court
that there is no extension of the jurisdiction of Land Grabbing
Act after 2013 and also brought to notice of this Court judgment
of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu High Court and contend that
cognizance was taken against the petitioner by the Land
Grabbing Court without application of mind and committed an
error.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
argument, he relied upon the judgment in K. SRUTI VS. P.R.
RAJESWARI AND OTHERS passed in W.P.NO.28592/2009
dated 18.06.2010, wherein point was raised whether taking
cognizance of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Land
Grabbing Act and Sections 420 and 447 of IPC against the writ
petitioners and the third respondent is liable to be interfered
with or not. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that
Section 5 contemplates penalty for offences in connection with
the land grabbing as enumerated under sub-sections (a) to (d)
of Section 5. Taking cognizance of the offence under Sections
420 and 447 of IPC by the Special Court is beyond its
8
jurisdiction. But Section 9 of the Land Grabbing Act will only
authorize the Special Court to exercise the powers of a Court of
Session while dealing with the offences under the Land Grabbing
Act, but it had no jurisdiction to try the offences under Sections
420 and 447 of IPC, which are exclusively triable by Magistrate
as referred to above.
9. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
High Court of Madras in R. THAMARAISELVAN VS.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. in W.P.NO.18872
OF 2014 AND CONNECTED PETITIONS decided on
10.02.2015 reported in MANU/TN/0230/2015 and brought
to notice of this Court discussion made in the judgment in
paragraph No.12.9 regarding IPC offences and also land
grabbing and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.16,
wherein discussion was made as to whether the Special Cells
constituted for investigating the cases pertaining to land
grabbing, are competent to investigate those kind of cases and
whether the Special Courts can try those cases and particularly
brought to notice of this Court Question No.3 in paragraph
9
Nos.45 and 46, wherein it is observed that the State
Government can issue a notification for creation of Special Court
under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 Cr.P.C.
10. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
passed by this Court in SRI JAGADISH SHIVAPPA SHETTAR
VS. SRI S. SUNDARESH passed in CRL.P.NO.6731 OF 2014
C/W. CRL.P.NO.5688 OF 2014 dated 19.02.2019, wherein
discussion was made with regard to jurisdiction is concerned that
BMTF Police Station has no jurisdiction to register the complaint
inasmuch as establishment of BMTF by Government Order dated
12.09.2012 came to end on 18.03.2013 and thereafter, it was
not extended.
11. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in SHRIRAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE
OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS
reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE KAR 15753 and brought to
notice of this Court paragraph No.57, wherein discussion was
made with regard to sub-Section (2) of Section 9 which would
clearly indicate that it is not only due application of mind with
10
regard to the allegation made in the complaint or the material
available before the Special Court which would be the prime
factor for taking cognizance of the offence, but also the location
of the land alleged to have been grabbed, or extent or value of
the land or the substantial nature of evil involved or any other
relevant matter in the interest of justice.
12. Learned counsel also relied upon the order passed by
this Court in SRI G.D. JAYARAM AND ANOTHER VS. THE
STATE BY BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK POLICE
STATION in CRL.P.NO.5340/2012 AND CONNECTED
PETITIONS decided on 10.10.2013, so also order passed in
SRI K.M. SHIVAPRAKASH AND ANOTHER VS. BANGALORE
METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE in CRL.P.NO.363 OF 2014
dated 21.01.2014, so also order passed in THE STATE BY
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE
STATION ETC. ETC. VS. G.D. JAYARAM & ANR ETC. ETC. in
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) DAIRY
NO(S).3629/2019 dated 22.02.2019, so also order passed in
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE VS. K.M.
11
SHIVAPRAKASH & ANR. in SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
(CRL) NO(S) 8795/2015 dated 19.03.2024, so also order
passed in SRI SRINATH MANGALORE VS. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in WRIT PETITION
NO.26160/2013 AND CONNECTED PETITIONS dated
26.09.2018, so also order passed in SRI. JAGADISH
SHIVAPPA SHETTAR VS. SRI S. SUNDARESH in
CRL.P.NO.6731/2014 AND CONNECTED PETITIONS dated
19.02.2019, so also order passed in SMT. GEETHA RAMESH
VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in
CRL.P.NO.2665/2013 AND CONNECTED PETITIONS decided
on 04.06.2019, so also order passed in V. KRISHNA VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA passed in CRL.P.NO.4314/2016
dated 05.08.2019, so also order passed in H.J. RAVI AND
ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
passed in CRL.P.NO.86/2017 dated 22.06.2022 and so also
order passed in C. GOPALAN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA THROUGH BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK
FORCE AND ANOTHER passed in WRIT PETITION
12
NO.21994/2022 dated 20.12.2023 with regard to jurisdiction
to register the case and investigate the same.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring these
voluminous judgments would contend that, first of all, there is
no extension of power to BMTF and there is no jurisdiction to try
the offence by the Land Grabbing Court and the Land Grabbing
Court committed an error in passing such an order and
particularly, brought to notice of this Court that punishment can
be considered by the Land Grabbing Court i.e., up to three years
and not more than that and offence under Section 420 of IPC is
more than that. Hence, the Land Grabbing Court cannot try the
offence which has the punishment for more than three years.
Therefore, it requires interference.
14. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for the
respondent-State would vehemently contend that the very
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted. The Court also taken note of the specific powers and
functions of BMTF as narrated in various notifications including
the clarificatory notification recently issued by the Government
13
on 02.02.2013, from which it is clear that BMTF has jurisdiction
to register any cases and investigate any offences relating to the
alleged unauthorized/illegal constructions over the private
properties. However, discussion was made that the object and
purpose of constituting BMTF is to protect the public properties
and to prevent any encroachment or illegal construction over the
public properties belonging to the Government or authorities
enumerated therein and answered point No.1 regarding
jurisdiction is concerned.
15. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State also
brought to notice of this Court the notification of the
Government for creation of the BMTF dated 19.03.1996,
notifications dated 02.02.2023 and 06.02.2013 filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein clarificatory order has
been passed as regards functions and powers of BMTF and
brought to notice of this Court the preamble, discussion and
Government order, wherein it is categorically held that BMTF is
empowered to enquire into the offences pertaining to
Government land and property under the following laws in the
14
Bangalore Metropolitan area i.e., Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Inam Abolition Acts,
the BMRDA Act, 1985 and Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. She also brought to notice
of this Court paragraph No.8, wherein it is held that BMTF can
register a case and proceed with the investigation of case, if the
facts contained in the complaint disclose the offences under the
Special Acts mentioned in G.O.No.UDD 247 MNU 95 dated
19.03.1996 and those mentioned above read with or without
those relevant under the Indian Penal Code and the Karnataka
Police Act. If the complaint discloses commission of offences
only under the Indian Penal Code or under the Karnataka Police
Act, then it will not be competent on the part of the BMTF to
proceed with the investigation thereof. She would contend that
this clarificatory order is very clear that from 02.02.2013, the
BMTF can register the case and proceed with the investigation
and clarificatory order is very clear that, if it is only under the
Indian Penal Code or under the Karnataka Police Act, then BMTF
will not be competent or otherwise it will be competent.
15
16. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State also
brought to notice of this Court the Government proceedings
dated 01.01.2022 for extending the staff for investigation
purpose. This clearly discloses that powers are extended to
BMTF and even staffs are proposed to be appointed for
investigation to proceed against the aggrieved party. She would
further contend that from the documents of RTC which have
been produced before this Court along with a memo and
Government proceedings, it is clear that ownership of the
property discloses in respect of this petitioner and building is
also constructed over 'Raja Kaluve' and also on the 'B' Kharab
land. Hence, it comes within the definition of land grabbing. She
also brought to notice of this Court that notification issued in the
year 1996 is very clear and specifically clarificatory order has
been passed and in this case, Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 and Section 420 of IPC is covered and if the same is along
with other offences, whether BMTF can proceed and in this
regard, SLP is pending before the Apex Court.
16
17. In reply to the arguments of the learned Additional
SPP for the respondent-State, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that SLP is already disposed of.
18. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State and also the
grounds which have been urged for discharge, this Court has to
take note of the material on record and having considered the
material on record, the points that would arise for consideration
of this Court are:-
(1) Whether the Land Grabbing Court committed
an error in rejecting prayer of discharge?
(2) What order?
Point No.(1)
19. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and
learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State and also taking
note of the fact that allegation against the petitioner is that he
has encroached haddigidida halla and formed layout with an
intention to cheat the Government as well as general public and
17
sold sites by encroaching upon haddigidida halla which is
considered to be a Government land.
20. The main contention of the learned Additional SPP
for the respondent-State is that the petitioner constructed
building over 'Raja Kaluve' and formed layout in 'B' Kharab land.
The Land Grabbing Court also taken note of definition of Section
2(f) of the Act, i.e., "land grabbing" means every activity of
grabbing of any land, without any lawful entitlement and with a
view to illegally taking possession of such land, or enter into or
create illegal tenancies or lease and licenses, agreements,
construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or
give such lands to any person on rental or lease and license
basis for construction, or use and occupation of unauthorized
structures; and the term "to grab" shall be construed
accordingly. The definition is also very clear with regard to
allegation made against the petitioner in the charge sheet.
21. It is also important to note that Section 3 of the Land
Grabbing Act is very clear that land grabbing in any form is
hereby prohibited and declared unlawful and any activity
18
connected with or arising out of land grabbing shall be an
offence punishable under this Act. The Land Grabbing Court also
taken note of the offence invoked under Section 192-A of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and so also Section 420 of
IPC. As per Section 7 of the Act, Special Court can try the
offences specified in Chapter XIV-A of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964. The Land Grabbing Court has also taken
note of Section 9(1) of the Act and observed that it can try the
cases arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing and also
extracted Section 9(1) of the Act.
22. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner is that Section 420 of IPC is punishable up to
seven years and Special Court has got power only to deal with
the offence punishable up to three years and cannot try the
offence under Section 420 of IPC. The question involved in this
petition is with regard to passing of an order against framing of
charge for the offence punishable under Section 192-A of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and under Section 420 of
IPC.
19
23. It is important to note that learned Additional SPP for
the respondent-State has relied upon the proceedings of the
Government of Karnataka, wherein a reference is made in the
preamble that Government vide Order dated 19.03.1996 has
given sanction to constitute a force called the Bangalore
Metropolitan Task Force. The main contention of the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner is that the same has not been
extended after 18.03.2013. But, in the Government Order
No.UDD 349 MNU 2011 dated 02.02.2013, taken note of the
earlier Government Orders dated 19.03.1996, 15.04.1996,
27.05.1996, 28.08.1997, 06.08.2001, 02.09.2002, 22.06.2004,
17.11.2004 and 18.02.2011 wherein the powers and functions of
the BMTF stand superceded. In addition to the enactments
mentioned in Government Order dated 19.03.1996, BMTF is
empowered to enquire into the offences pertaining to
Government land and property under the following laws in the
Bangalore Metropolitan area i.e., Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Inam Abolition Acts,
the BMRDA Act, 1985 and Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Hence, it is clear that
20
BMTF is empowered to enquire into the said acts also. In
paragraph No.8 also, made clear that BMTF can register a case
and proceed with the investigation of case, if the facts contained
in the complaint disclose the offences under the Special Acts
mentioned in G.O.No.UDD 247 MNU 95 dated 19.03.1996 and
those mentioned above read with or without those relevant
under the Indian Penal Code and the Karnataka Police Act. If
the complaint discloses commission of offences only under the
Indian Penal Code or under the Karnataka Police Act, then it will
not be competent on the part of the BMTF to proceed with the
investigation thereof.
24. In the case on hand, the complaint disclose
commission of offences under 192-A of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 420 of IPC. Hence, BMTF is
empowered to enquire into the offences pertaining to the
Government land and property. If the complaint discloses
commission of offences only under the Indian Penal Code or
under the Karnataka Police Act, then it will not be competent on
the part of the BMTF to proceed with the investigation.
21
Therefore, since the offence against the petitioner is under
Section 192-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 196 and Section
420 of IPC, BMTF has got power to enquire into the same.
25. The very contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner relying upon the order passed in CRL.P.NO.6731 OF
2014 C/W. CRL.P.NO.5688 OF 2014,
CRL.P.NO.2665/2013 AND CONNECTED PETITIONS decided
on 04.06.2019, CRL.P.NO.4314/2016 dated 05.08.2019,
CRL.P.NO.86/2017 dated 22.06.2022 and so also WRIT
PETITION NO.21994/2022 dated 20.12.2023 is that
nowhere the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka has
been referred. However, this Court has discussed the same in
the order passed in CRL.P.NO.5340/2012 AND CONNECTED
PETITIONS decided on 10.10.2013 as regards the said
proceedings, but failed to take note of paragraph No.8 of the
Government Order dated 02.02.2013, wherein powers are given
to BMTF to investigate the matter under Section 192-A of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 420 of IPC. No
doubt, the Apex Court taken note of the order passed in
22
CRL.P.NO.363 OF 2014 dated 21.01.2014, wherein the
offence under Section 279 IPC was quashed which was filed
against the petitioner in view of CRL.P.NO.5340/2012 AND
CONNECTED PETITIONS decided on 10.10.2013, the same
has been challenged in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(CRIMINAL) DAIRY NO(S).3629/2019 dated 22.02.2019,
wherein notice was ordered on the special leave petition and also
on the application for condonation of delay.
26. However, the Apex Court disposed of SPECIAL
LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL) NO(S) 8795/2015 on 19.03.2024,
holding that we find no reason to interfere with the impugned
order as we are not dealing with the case of a mere irregularity
in conducting the investigation and the Court proceeded on a
wrong track and the situation could have been remedied very
easily by them either by adopting a different process or bringing
in adequate changes in the existing notification or by introducing
a new one. It is also observed that unfortunately, this has not
been done, leading to quashment of the proceedings initiated
without even undergoing the process of trial. It is further held
23
that, petitioners would do the needful so that the violators and
those who are helping them, while discharging their public duties
would be brought to justice. But, in the common order passed in
CRL.P.NO.5340/2012 AND CONNECTED PETITIONS decided
on 10.10.2013 placed before this Court which has been
challenged before the Apex Court in SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION (CRIMINAL) DAIRY NO(S).3629/2019 dated
22.02.2019 arising out of CRL.P.NO.5340/2012 AND
CONNECTED PETITIONS, only notice has been ordered on the
application for condonation of delay.
27. When such being the material on record and material
placed before the Court is very clear that an allegation is made
against the petitioner herein that he had indulged in encroaching
the public land i.e., 'Raja Kaluve' and BMTF also investigated the
matter and filed the charge sheet and serious allegations are
made against the petitioner, as regards the extent of
encroachment and possession, the same can be established only
during the course of trial. The Special Court has taken note of
Section 420 of IPC as well as Sections 2(f) and 3 of the Act and
24
so also charge sheet is filed under Section 192-A of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 420 of IPC which
is auxiliary to the act of the petitioner. Having discussed the
same, the Special Court comes to the conclusion that under
Sections 7 and 9(1) of the Act, it can try the offence under
Section 420 of IPC, since the very Government proceedings
dated 02.02.2013 confirms the same and bar is only in respect
of exclusive offence under IPC, which does not empower the
BMTF to investigate the matter. But a reading of paragraph No.
8 of the said Government proceedings dated 02.02.2013 is very
clear that BMTF can deal with the matter in view of the
notification dated 02.02.2013 and periodical notifications are
also issued as referred above. When such being the case, the
very contention that BMTF notification is not extended cannot be
accepted.
28. It is also important to note that learned Additional
SPP for the respondent-State also brought to notice of this Court
the Government proceedings extending the employee services
having referred the Government orders dated 13.07.2021,
25
10.03.2021, 08.07.2021 and 16.08.2021. The services of the
staffs have been provided to the BMTF and the same is also
extended vide Government Order dated 01.01.2022. When such
material are available before the Court, the very contention of
the learned counsel of the revision petitioner cannot be
accepted. However it is made clear that in view of the
Government proceedings, it can be investigated. But when the
charge sheet is filed before the Magistrate, it is the duty of the
Magistrate to split up the case with regard to IPC offences and
commit the same to Special Court to deal with the land grabbing
offences and there is a force in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is not correct
with regard to IPC offences and the citations produced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are aptly applicable, since the
Special Court cannot deal with the offence under Section 420 of
IPC.
29. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the maximum punishment is 3 years and not
more than that and punishment for the offence under Section
26
420 of IPC is more than 3 years. Though the Land Grabbing
Court has held that the Court can try the IPC offence, the same
is not correct, the Special Court while framing the charge can
split up the charge sheet in respect of the IPC offences and send
back to the Magistrate, who is empowered to try the offences.
The Magistrate himself while committing the same can be done
and if it is not done, the Special Court can pass an order to split
up the case and send it to the Court having jurisdiction to deal
with IPC offences. Hence, the order impugned requires
interference in part with regard to IPC offences, but the
conclusion is that the Special Court can deal with the offences
under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
which does not require any interference and the same is within
the jurisdiction of Special Court in terms of the proceedings of
the Government, but not in respect of IPC offences and
furthermore, Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is very clear that
punishment is not less than one year and the same is extendable
to three years and not more than that. The power is not vested
with Land Grabbing Court to deal with IPC offences and in this
case, offence invoked is also under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, I
27
do not find any ground to quash the entire order passed by the
Special Court and I answer point No.(1) accordingly.
Point No.(2)
30 . In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed-in-
part.
(ii) The order of Special Court is set aside
regarding the observation that Special Court
can try the IPC offences and directed to split
up the case of IPC offences and send back to
the Magistrate, who is having jurisdiction to
deal with the IPC offences.
(iii) The Magistrate, who commits the case to the
Land Grabbing Court to split up the IPC offence
and send the charge sheet to Land Grabbing
Court and retain the material regarding the IPC
offence and proceed in accordance with law.
28
(iv) The Registry is directed to send the copy of
this order to the Land Grabbing Court and also
the Magistrate, who commits the case to the
Land Grabbing Court for academic purpose to
deal with the matter within the scope and
ambit of Special Enactment.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST