IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOF§iE".g. DATED THIS THE 3"' DAY OF NOVEMBER BEFORE 2' it H THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CRIMINAL PETITION_NO.;l6E%8A201¢'l\\,/,'M . " " BETWEEN: V. C it it D.V. Kundar, Aged 68 years, S/O V.M. Salian, -- V , Resident of Devikrupa, . V Karnad Bypass, Mangalore Taluk_,_. 'V . Karnataka-5741%54.,?'A_ ' Petitioner (By Sri. Ganesln Advocate) State by C51, ~ B_S. & FC,~E§an'galore, " Re p'r'ese'n-ted?-by its Staynding _VCo.unse«!.eyVa'*nd Pubi ic 'Prosecu--tor ' In Highcourt.' Respondent
V71_(B*_/ Sri. C”.ifl.”jad’n.av, Advocate)
.1 V’ Tt:is_Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
VC’i’il’T1in€:l,_Pl5OCedUr€ praying to set aside the order dated 7.9.2010
‘-V~._pa.s’sed: by the XXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge &
1 S’pecia_l7Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore City in Sp|.C.C,No.2-45/O2
and to consequently declare that the application dated
16.8.2010 filed in the Court below under section-311 offC’o.de of
Criminal Procedure is allowed.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for orde_r’s–~
Court made the following:
ORDER;
This Criminal Petition is filedunder§ectionV.’4.82v'”of Code
Criminal Procedure praying to set the 22.9.2010
passed by the XXI Additional Sessions Judge &
Special Judge for ca: cases.;aala.gia;i’_;§’lg§ ‘AA:’–b,rI’V1_~!t__:,’.’,r)l.C.C.l\lo.245/02
and to conseqi;’e’r’i’lji;}” application dated
16.8.2010 riled’ section-311 of Code of
Criminal Pr.Voced’u’re7as a’1l4l’owe’d.._’ _ .
2. In theiCouVrt.”tielo\ili”..’i’petitioner/Accused No.1 filed an
,?3!3.Dlicat.ic{n’VVunderV”sectVi__o_n;<-311 of Code of Criminal Procedure
seekipg»_Vto._'urec«aVll'*v__PW-29 for the purpose of further cross-
examln.a*ti'onV Tor..aA'l=r'iving at a just decision in the case. It is
m'entionued. paragraph-4 of the application filed in the Court
vbe.lo.v\i that irvhen the case was posted for addressing the final
on 13.11.2007, the prosecution came with an
apup.lVicatiora under section-311 of Code of Criminal Procedure
seeking permission of the Court to examine hlong Kongrbased
NRIS viz., cw–3, cw-4, cw-5 and cw-41 by reee..édlyi;{_gf_n-"'1.&_§'es.r
evidence by way of Video Conferencing. This..a'[§'i3.lica_ltio.4n
allowed under Section–311 of Code Criminal'1'AProced..ure,_o:s1
18.3.2008 and prosecution took lot of timelfor their.e§<a'mi'na'tion'g
by video conferencing. Finally, the"grosecutionlgegélarnilineld CW–4
Gopal Tharumal Mclwani Vw.ayV,.VVof..Video"Conferencing
on 9.2.2010 and unable to'aIri:grj'_'..(:W–41 who are
material witnesses~'to'fhe 'It is mentioned in
parag raph–6 of evidence of PW–31 (CW–
4) Gopal thleknlalture of hear–say evidence
and the withhold the examination of
material witnesses ._:Vviz..; C\lV–§.and CW–41 against whom Canara
|odg’ed.e.nnthehle E_x.D7«V¥'”complaint dated 11.12.2000 before the
CB1 above two l\iRIs committed fraud and they
“are the real v_bene’ficiaries. It is further stated in paragraph-6 of
“–«z–Tiyt’ia.e’-».aApplicat.lo:n that their statements recorded under section
Code” of Criminal Procedure run counter to
“e.V%dor.:uvrr§entary and oral evidence produced before the Court.
:li«:..:iTherefore the accused wants to recall PW-29 – Chief
fl-:
Investigating Officer for the purpose of furtherc~”‘-cross-
examination.
3. Respondent ~« CB1 has filed a counter in’ t*l1efCo”uTrt’~beE.ow=.
opposing the application filed by the petitioner ande.rV’secti:o.n-*3-,1rl1
of Code of Criminal Procedure=.stating._thatr»’V:t’l”.er.e_VVHare
reasonable grounds to recall the Cw-i:t_raess. petition was
presented to protract the ‘-trial.’ not be further
examined as he has given hi~g..evl»de~ngce_ i”n”de”te_i’:”‘about the entire
investigation.
4. olftthe finding of the trial Court
is as underzvnk — V C C
The trial h.a’~s r’nen’tioned in its order that despite the
;,d’Vi’rection._fibftthis.gourtVforlvexpeditious trial of the case and the
ev’i’dt.encfe”‘havllngubeyejn concluded and the statement of accused
C Vl””–~VV’under’s.e’ction+3i.3’lV.being already recorded, the counsel for the
~4.l.l’.j’jvaccu.sed No.13-has chosen to make the application under section–«
4″–‘.V.x3–1g”1″”_of_.:Code of Criminal Procedure to procrastinate the
. p–r.o’ce__eding. Although counsel for accused No.1 stated that the
°rt_:’recalling of the Investigating Officer W PW–29 was necessitated
gm/’
because of examination of PW-31 at a later stage, no
explanation is forthcoming to justify the delay in making the
application. PW–31 was examined as far back as on.j9.[2«.20V10.
If the accused No.1 had realiy any genuine reqiiest’ito…’fuTrt’i:eri=.»
cross–e><amine the Investigating Officer_._ he_".s'hoel'd
waited for six months to seek the ré_lie'r'.
unexplained and unjustified delay._in._mak’i’ng the”.§’g’pji’i’cration. On
this ground, the application fliedgbyV:’th_e’=accused–under section-
311 of Code of Criminal Pro’cedure.__v\}{aAs
5- Feeling Va§IVQr.ieve_dVV’Hbyi;t_he:f~saine,.V'”the accused has
preferred this ‘ 7
6. I hav’e__4heardth.e»’!eas»rned counsel for the petitioner as
‘well as rije learned’ counsei for the respondent.
» i.s__contention of the learned counsel for the
Detijti’oVn.er x”th”atVA’g::.’further cross–examination of PW–29 —
Irigvestigéating Officer is necessary in order to elicit omissions and
-i..VVcotntr’adictions since the documentary evidence and the oral
‘te’stiA’:;jony does not taiiy with each other. It is the contention of
Ex”
the ieamed counsei for the petitioner that to estabiish the
contrary statement, he wants to further cross-examine PW~29 –~
Investigating Officer. Therefore in order to arri\_/,eV_j”atC~..just
decision, the further cross–examination of PW–29 __–.-3’i.nyest:i–g:até,,rig.,
officer is necessary. The record discioses that”at:”a:’very beiated”.
stage, PW~31 was recalied and exartiinei,da..oyi’cfthe~ jpro’s.éc.uti1o_n.
Therefore there is no delay on the part ofthe petiitioAn.’e.r.. On
other hand, the prosecution was_not:_pr.ompt’ i~nC_’_’exa_i?nining the
materiai witnesses. _ –_ ,
8. Learned counsei for t§:ve:’re.spori~de’nt supports the
impugned
9. Section–311_’o.f<_C'o~de~.o'f Criminai Procedure reads as
unden
to..gsumrrio'hv material witness, or examine
' .-pe'rs_oinlpreseiiity:~ Any Court may, at any stage of any
Hrinouiry,V'A–"tria'i::."or other proceeding under the Code,
su"mm.,on–.a"ny person as a witness, or examine any
Apersonp' in attendance, though not summoned as
_wi'tr:ess, or recail and re–examine any person already
'examined; and the Court shail summon and examine
x
E»//
or recail and re–examine any such person if his
evidence appears to it to be essentiai to the just
decision of the case."
10. In this case, in order to elicit the or_ni_s4sio’ns3V’a«nd
contradictions, the petitioner/ accused No.1
cross–examine PW–29. In my view,i’ievid’enC’€ Of
Investigating Officer appears to be essentiafiifor th_eAj’ust
of the case. At any stage, the”‘tri’a§. Court._can:”‘.=reVcaVi’iVWand re;
examine any person if hisrevideriicie”a.:p4pe’a.rs to be essentiai for
the just decision of the case; I.’ATh\;.§’Vi”b’einQi’-.the1’_iega| position and
to have [a iiii iiifaiiriif’,.tria3§,;’ view, the request of the
petitioner/accused ‘i§i’ov.AI_1_:’toT*fii~rther cross-examine PW29 ~
Investigating Oaffir__:er»d..ese’rvVé”s to be aliowed. Accordingiy, the
‘orde-r..A passédmiby the triai Court is set aside and
peti_tioij.erf.§:CctJsed:i$i.o.I is at fiberty to cross–examine PW–29 in
V”~’*ithe Court tfwith this observation, this Criminai Petition is
_. j;-c|_i_s’posed or, 3
Sfi/«
33333?