IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG§sII,CII§E'fIf'* I-
DATED THIS THE 31" DAY OF cI¢::PQBEI_<;
BEFORE V'
THE I«IoN'BLI;«: MR. JIJs'r1cE;'kI&;IIoK"I3
CRIMINAL PETITION Nq,_45?'f--..QF
BETWEEN: ' u ' '
DR SHIVANAND BEKAL ,
3/0 LATE SR1 SHANTHA NAIK -
AGED 57 YEARS, : ~=
BIRECTORC1F'iaI'RjIj_V._f. *
GULBARGA; _:- '
PETIIIQNER
{By KI9i!I2*i}i§I§ATI+I.fi1A-I}VO(3A'I'E}
AND :
THE CENTRAL BUREAIJ 'IWINVESTIGATIQN
BY 1'13 DI'..sLIPEI2I.:srrEN1;f:ENT oz? POLICE,
' ' . . . . . ..'
BANGA'LORE.'» AV '
RESPONDENT
” (By-Sn’. : _EEA\?I.}$F{ANKAI? FOR
I M/S A§3IIQII’ HARANAf.~I£§LL{ Ass*rs., ADVOCATE)
4. ” ” vI,x’¥’§!iS CRLIP IS FILED U/8.482 CR.P.€3, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
3 ¥._’F¥:I’E’*.PETIT1″ONEIQ PRAYING THAT TESS HONBLE COHRT MAY BE
F’§.EASED”‘ TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER D’1′.04.09.’.2OO7
. .V:PASSED§ 3′!’ THE XX} ADDL, CITY CIVIL AND SE-SSiONS JUDGE AND
S?i}}CIAL JUDGE FQR CB£ CASES, BANGALORE ON HIS FILE IN
._*-._SPL,C.C.NO.60/07 AND 8:: PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION
FR-E:f) BY THE PETITIONER U/8.243 (3) OF c1a>.:>.c. IN THE AFORESAIB
‘I>I”~2I3C:EE:DINGs, SPL.C.C.NO.60/9′? PENDING ON THE FILE OF’ THE XXI
‘2\DDL.CI’I’Y CIVIL ARI} 3313310913 JUDGE AND THE spasm. JUDGE
FCIR CBi CASES, BANGALORE.
THIS CRLP. CEGMING cm FOR ADMISSION fr§1ifs.. DAf_&’~,
comm’ MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Qi
The petitioner has iazgto “q11§:$s?ion :’ ‘w3:ge./Hotdci;
dt,04.09.2(}O7 passed by the XXI Adc:il. :(3i}t:3_z mg: and Special
Judge for OBI Cases at $0.60] 200′? («OBI
Judge’ for short). ‘V i . ‘V V
2. The petitioxig-: a§:,1.A 311 r/W 243(3) of
Cr.P.C.’. for %3oia::{d 32. T”‘”
3. Sri Magzxjs-anath_, counsel appearing for the
pcfitianer s11b1:;;1it§fl1 at ~fhe was not aware of certain
3.-enquiry in respczct of other delinquent
em1i1’oyét;s.’V’ — to knew of the said proceedings, the
fof said Pws was filed. He: further submits that
itnpossible far the petitioner to produce omified
tiigé papers in the enquiry proceedings, as the cloetmmcnts
V” they izxdcaed mm into volumes. He stihmits that certain
4″v.i1;;4f;tg_3v1’ta11t questizans were left out while cmss~exami:n:ing the said
fifiimcsses. If an opportunity is denied to the petitioner ta get the
£824..
said witnesses meailed and c:mss–cxami31ed further, tizéxt V’
to denial of masonablc oppommities. mgasu. s1§bn3it:$:”i.hz{tVi}ot_§1′.
tha I.As an-2: made for recalling 3 wit11csse§;.__ xis ~.
LA in respect of pw-32 and he su§ms§;~~ ._g11at i1c: wcmlfd his ”
application only to recall PWS “~
4. S11 Ravishankar, the mspondcnt
submits that the dgpaitiziacntééyl in ncspcct of
other delinquents \isT:§>tj3V. the ofiencc or charge
levelled agai:;%s£{heT%;;§fifi§ner.”_’%fi¢ submits that despite the
time frame bding Cotlrt, the case is not gcatting
disposed caf, as péiifiGnc$1>_ on maldng one after the other
submiAféi31~atVit is only with the motive to protmct
the.Vp:b€§it§Liig1gsL. jL
5; ‘Tfic s11b:§§.$§ions of the learned counsel have received my
consigiération. The C.ri111i11a1 case is of the year 1997. The
cannot be protracted endlessly. Some material dates
V” pmsecution closczi its side of evidence an 13,0’?,2(}O6.
was examizmcd on 03.10.2006. The pcfitioncfs side
3 adjoumzmcnts to address the arguments. At last on
19.06.2007. thc angtlments on behalf of the petitioner was
Qgififi.
advanced in part, The case was posted for further
26.06.2007. Again an adjournment was seught vV.ré;s»:
adjourned to 30.G6.20()’7.
6. Considefing the age and the pmg19es_e’ef the ‘1’:he’;C’BIV *’
Judge is of the confirmed View that stage” oif’ afguieents,
the ease cannot be reopened- V’ Vv
7. I have also gone apffilieefion, which the
peiitjener has filed 1’1 f24C%(3) of the Cr.P,C,
Even if all are taken on their face
value, then made out for zecallitlg the
witnesses, ‘of”t11e. has two parts. While. the first
his part is mandatozy. When the CB!
Juci’ge’__i’S_ef’ View that it is not essential to recall the
;”””-e’j,1:t1.€SSeE;L’.i:V!1 q13.esii{;1i, it is only the tint part, which is attiracteztt
.. beea1′:se’:.in cross—exa:mi11a.tion the emmsel for the accused
questions, which ought tea have been put) is not 3
V” V-V:gn;ii1i;d for recalling the wimesses far further cross-examination:
4′ ‘v.T}:;e.V.petifioner has not produced the copies of any documents 511
{he departmental enquiry, The application under Sex::t’ion 31 1 dares
net even disclose when he was made aware of the departxnental
£334.
enquiry procaedixzgs in respect of other dclinquentg, V.
docllments were bulky or vcpittminotas, the I1E3l€VaI1’f.__dDCi1$€11iSf V’
alone ceuld have been produced.
8. View from any anglc, I d>Q_nc3t ‘fi;1::i–..aI1y “fér;
igltfirfcrcncc in the mattcer, Th:-. imfialéiurd c:;r£i*e_1’; ‘dofegzs L1,«D’Vf;%VVVsu1?fe:r
fmm any perversity; mfixmityv :31: cu1V’i:a1}:1iss’ pk’-tit1’on.
bvz”