BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court said when there is not even a single allegation of the involvement of the wife of the accused in the manufacturing and storing of spurious liquor, she cannot be brought in as co-accused merely because she was staying with the husband.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made these observations while dismissing the petition filed by complainant R K Bhat questioning orders passed by the trial courts dismissing his application seeking to implead the wife of accused Norbert D’Souza, a resident of Kodman village of Bantwal taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, as a co-accused in the criminal case.
“The application is misconceived and filed with an oblique motive to settle scores with the husband Norbert D’Souza, the accused No 3, that too, at a pre-trial stage,” the court said while quoting the judgments of the apex court which held that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC cannot be exercised at a pre-trial stage, to bring in another accused.
A complaint was registered in April 2020 by the jurisdictional detecting officer of the Karnataka Excise Department for offences punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act.
The inspector of excise conducted the investigation and filed a chargesheet against three persons, including Norbert.
It was stated in the chargesheet that when the excise officials were conducting an inspection, they found that accused No 2 had possessed a large quantity of spurious liquor and infrastructure for the manufacture of the spurious liquor in the backyard of the house of accused No 3. They drew up a mahazar and seized several materials from the house which was in the name of Norbert.
The complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC seeking to implead Norbert’s wife as accused No 4. The trial court rejected the same in November 2022. It was challenged before the sessions court which also rejected it in June 2024. Hence he moved the high court.
The petitioner contended that the application should have been allowed as the wife was aware of illegal activities and there was ample evidence for trial against her, but it was rejected by the trial courts.