Bengaluru: The high court Tuesday acquitted 30 employees in a 14-year-old case linked to an alleged attack on Toyota Techno Park management staff in Bidadi, slamming the investigating officer (IO) for bias and procedural lapses.Justice HP Sandesh also ordered director-general and inspector-general of police to initiate action against Vijayakumar, the IO, and submit a progress report.Prosecution alleged that on March 19, 2011, the accused, all company employees, formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the management staff of M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt Ltd at Toyota Techno Park, Bidadi, causing injuries.In Jan 2019, a magistrate’s court at Ramanagara convicted them and, under the Probation of Offenders Act, found that the accused fell within its provisions and called for a report, requiring executed bonds with surety from all the accused. The sessions court upheld the judgment in Feb 2020, and the accused moved the high court thereafter.They argued that the sessions court allowed the IO to submit additional evidence and produce a certified copy of the FIR, which was not placed before the magistrate’s court. They also claimed that the trial court took more than seven years to complete the trial.After reviewing the case records, Justice Sandesh flagged serious lapses by the IO. Although the incident occurred around 10.30pm and the officer reached the spot within 45 minutes — returning twice later — he failed to register a complaint despite a cognizable offence being evident. Key evidence, including a steel window frame, was left untouched at the scene. Despite staying there for nearly 19 hours, the FIR was submitted to the court two days later without any explanation.Justice Sandesh noted that the IO’s actions violated Section 162. Despite knowing a cognizable offence had occurred, he failed to record statements from injured persons or eyewitnesses, acting only after deliberation and prior consultation. The complaint was filed at the instance of the management, as admitted, and the case was registered accordingly. Notably, a complaint from one of the accused had been submitted the previous day, but it was taken up only after the management’s case was registered.He added, “There is no legal evidence before the trial court while convicting the accused numbers 1 to 30. Even witnesses have not spoken at the first instance by any of the injured persons that the particular accused persons assaulted them, but only that there was an improvement in the evidence. Even the report under the Probation of Offenders Act was not submitted to the court.”He set aside the orders passed by the magistrate’s court and the sessions court.
