{"id":100709,"date":"2010-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2"},"modified":"2018-05-07T02:21:08","modified_gmt":"2018-05-06T20:51:08","slug":"d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 3\"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010\nBEFORE C\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARA'_SW\ufb012_i$l:${_V\".  .\n\nCRIMINAL PETITION N,9\u00ab.S59'1t'i2r0'0'i'2\u00a7'vi\"*:: ~ it\nBETWEEN: C it it  C\n\nD.V. Kundar,\n\nAged 68 years,\n\nS\/0 V.M. Saiian,\n\nResident of Devikrupa, ,\n\nKarnad Bypass, Muiki;ff _ \n\nMangalore Taluk,   :   \nKarnataka--574i_54.  _ '   Petitioner\n\n(By s ri . G  h}}i<  ma*t  ,j' A d.yojca'te:) \nANO:'.__\n\nState byacdoi S I \n\nBS & FC, Bangalyojre  '\n\nRepresented "b.y_Vi'ts\nS'1',a'riTdl_ntgg Cou nsel  "\n\n 'Publicimosectitor.  Respondent<\/pre>\n
S .g(I5yysrr;t;I”‘ci,;CuH\ufb01oadhav, Advocate)<\/p>\n
Tl1.isv”‘Criminai Petition is filed under Section 482 of<\/p>\n
V’  Code” oficriminal Procedure praying to set aside the order
\n dated 10.7.2009 passed by the XXI Additional City Civil
\n  Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CB1 cases,
\nit ” “Bangalore city on the application filed under section–319 of<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure and to add CW3, Prakash<\/p>\n
‘\u00a7..\/<\/p>\n
Narasingadas Punjabi, his father Tej Narasingadas
\nNavalrai, CW41 — Suresh Purswaney and his wife Karan
\nPurswaney, CVV4 Gopai Gopai Tiiarmuai Meiwan4iVV.aii14cii.CW5
\nArjundas Tharmual Melwani as accused:.~~~.in;Vw’:’__\u00a7\u00a7ije:ci.al
\nC.C.No.24S\/02.     ‘<\/p>\n
This Criminal Petition is cc;n1ing’on”fpr-I madamsisoimis it<\/p>\n
day the Court made the fo!Iowing’:’.\u00abV__ <\/p>\n
o R <\/p>\n
This Criminal PietiAtion”V’i’s_’VCfi:!’e’d,T’u.n.der Section 482 of<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure  aside the order<\/p>\n
dated 10.7.;20’D9:I”passed iiy ‘th\u00e9’.i_)<~Xi..:V.\u00a7i\\dditional City Civil<\/p>\n
and  'Judge for CBI cases,<\/p>\n
Bang:'aAlor.e' city'\/Clear\u00bb…:t'ne"a.op*l-ication filed under section–319 of
\nCode of"cCrimin'ai"ii\u00e9rocedure and to add CW3, Prakash<\/p>\n
Narijasirigadas'"~-Punjabi, his father Tej Narasingadas<\/p>\n
C trial\/al_ra'Ai,% -CW41 — Suresh Purswaney and his wife Karan<\/p>\n
 ,;?'l.~rswVanVe'-3:,  Gopa! Gopal Tharmual Melwani and CW5<\/p>\n
Arj'una'~as""Tharmua| Melwani as accused in Special<\/p>\n
V  "C*.C_.No".'245\/O2.\n<\/p>\n
2. Accused No.1 has filed an application under<\/p>\n
Section–319 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court
\nE? \/’4<\/p>\n
‘xx’<\/p>\n
below. The averments made in the said application are as<\/p>\n
unden<\/p>\n
2.1 The CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore filed__;’Ch’arjgej: <\/p>\n
against 9 accused persons under Sections_:’j1,2t3.::B., <\/p>\n
420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and l\u00a7l77:.,141\\’Afj7\u00a3F5’C ‘and,”1.:sQj..,;\/w T<\/p>\n
13(1), (c) 8L (d) of Preventi.on,__of cdrtdptiona,A-tt.,.,i,198t\u00a7:. <\/p>\n
2.2 The Deputy Ge,ne–ralL_:–.Manaoeiri”B..\\,l;Ei3ai, Legal
\nSection, Circle Office,kCa_:’1’a’ra.,\u00a7Van4l%’\u00ab”Vh,a’s:’lodged a complaint
\ndated 11.1:;,2ooo  Pt-ditash Narasingdas
\nPunjabi,    Suresh Puruswaney<\/p>\n
and itareniAP’d.t=tis_viia,net(‘;”‘-it .is_’ aiieged that the said persons
\ncommitted , fraauidff  was inferred after verifying<\/p>\n
indepecndentf-it’by its officers, legal department and<\/p>\n
 GEQD report, in the matter of FCNR deposit<\/p>\n
prcttbvv-V’j’ttd.9’9,z3o for usp-3,7o,ooo\/\u00bb dated 8.5.1999,<\/p>\n
l:iearin.__gj’pr\u00abi*nAted serial No.2039884, Exhibit P-46 and FCNR<\/p>\n
 ..D\u00a72poS%t; No.FCKD No.99\/26 for usp 5,oo,ooo\/~ dated<\/p>\n
it ‘~-,_V5″.–5.i1999 bearing printed Sl.No.2039866, Exhibit P~\u00ab6. The<\/p>\n
 ‘V -Vicompiaint of B.V. Pal Deputy General Manager, Canara<\/p>\n
Bank was addressed and presented to the then DIG of CBI<\/p>\n
one Santosh Macheria. That on receipt of the said
\ncomplaint, the DIG Santosh Macheria made an<\/p>\n
endorsement on the complaint itself calling\ufb02i”fog:rVg:”‘tghe<\/p>\n
comments from PW–29, P.iVi. Satish, on  <\/p>\n
the covering letter of B.V.Pai another.endors_e’m*e’ntV’is..ma’dAe 0<\/p>\n
to the effect that the copy of the.l”‘:Vorrip’|aintof’  <\/p>\n
made over to PW-29, P.iVi.\n<\/p>\n
2.3 The DIG San_t’o.sh .i7lachVeriV_a.gge.nerated Va suo motu
\nFIR (Ex.P–2SS) at 1700 22..ei:’:27;2ooo. The written<\/p>\n
complaint crf’llT3iiV: 7i#eii_ diat-\u00e9dii ‘&’1i.~12.2ooo which was<\/p>\n
suppr.c-‘ssedib-3\/0 there-CE3~i’&’ivas ipiooidiiced before the Court by
\nthe CBI   the Accused No.4, on whose<\/p>\n
behalf aVni’—applica_tiori was filed for its production. It is<\/p>\n
 r\u20ac~i.o’%\u00a7’i\/aingit to stat’e’vt.bat CBI, opposed the production of the<\/p>\n
 ‘ complaint but it was compelled to produce<\/p>\n
‘the”t’samev’ti’j_es’ per the orders of Court, just before the<\/p>\n
 cominencement of examination of PW–29, P.M. Satish, the<\/p>\n
if   Investigation Officer of this case and the said written<\/p>\n
‘complaint dated 11.12.2000 of Canara Bank was marked<\/p>\n
it through him as Exhibit D–7. A reading of the complaint of<\/p>\n
2* .\n<\/p>\n
z } \/;’
\naux’<\/p>\n
B.\\!. Pai dated 11.12.2000 (Ex.D~7) discloses cognizable
\noffences and also discioses that CW–3 Prakash Narasingdas<\/p>\n
Punjabi, his father Te} Narasingdas Punjabi, CW–4V1′.:Su.resh<\/p>\n
Puruswaney and his wife Karen Puruswaney are’-i-n.\\{o_i_V-\u00a7\u00e9d”i~~n<\/p>\n
the fraud pertaining to the aforesaid <\/p>\n
Receipts.\n<\/p>\n
2.4 A reading of the .jt61(\u00ab3}_FCr.P.C.7-staitementi <\/p>\n
CW–3 Prakash Punjabi CW–4iViv~..:SureshV”Puruszwainey, CW–4
\nGopal Tharoomal Me’i’.r\\ia%ni  ~\u00ab\u00a3$(1eiwani, C’iiV;5 Arjundas
\nTharoomal Meiwani  that the real<\/p>\n
beneficiarEe.s”j;Vofgitfhe  icornrnvitted in respect of FCNR
\ndepos’i.t5 ‘th:i’s’1:.’g’;’a:se..4are\ufb02i!’ongkong based I\\\u00a3RIs including<\/p>\n
CW–4 GVop.ai’vMie-!._wAa.n’i’r..–‘a’nd CW–5 Arjun Melwani. The<\/p>\n
  cit’e’d”vv-b.\\,.r\u00ab’the CB1 to the charge sheet in this<\/p>\n
‘  a.|4so:V’d.i:sc-foses that CW–3 Prakash Punjabi, his father<\/p>\n
.’Tej”i\u00abNara’s’iijortias Navalrai, CW–4I Suresh Puruswaney his<\/p>\n
 wife ..i~’:a\u00ab.ren Puruswaney, CW–4 Gopai Melwani and CW–5<\/p>\n
A  iAirju.n Melwani are ali Hongkong based NRIS are involved in<\/p>\n
fraud in this case.\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
a1…\/’<\/p>\n
2.5 The :61(3) statements of CW–~3 Prakash Punjabi
\nand CW–~4 Gopai Melwani disciose that the account<\/p>\n
opening forms, Photos, Passpost copies of the .4d’e.pjos’ItVors<\/p>\n
were handed over to CW—4 Gopai Meiwani, who’
\nthem to Canara Bank. The depo_si.t _r_ecei_p.tsV”4v\\}0.\u00e9;&r:e’.’i”eceiv-ed <\/p>\n
by CW~4 Gopai Melwani from the;”:Can_ar*a B’a~n_k  iiaiitejrivoin<\/p>\n
handed over the deposit recevipts,<\/p>\n
2.6 The scrutiny.\u00e9_of CV92′;-EHi:tra9Ct.of current account
\nbearing No.01-0O210EV\u00a7W’9oAf._V  Company M\/s.<\/p>\n
EMVEE Conif’o;.rts and:  maintained at<\/p>\n
Corporation Baenk;CAa’n\u00bbton:\u00e9*nent\ufb01r-anch;~E3a:ngaiore marked
\nas Ex.D–15  loan amounts
\ntransferred from ‘CC-anarat -.Bani<'\u00ab…-iiiere received by CW–4<\/p>\n
GOP"si. i'\/ieiv~.if'\u00a7';*\u00abai Win'-Self as"det.aiied below:<\/p>\n
 '
\n_ 1  "489_5.06I._<"\n<\/p>\n
 C2 4″4$9528′<\/p>\n
”  V3′ .. 495422<\/p>\n
‘~ch’equerviVi\u00a7;’o;. Date Amount<\/p>\n
13.5.1999
\n07.6.1999
\n02.5.2000<\/p>\n
RS.62,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
RS.25,20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
RS.3,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Frauduient ioan amounts pertaining to FCNR<\/p>\n
 credited to Current Account No.OOO0O3823,<\/p>\n
\u00a7”\n<\/p>\n
\/
\n1<\/span><\/p>\n
Va\u00bb?\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit P-82 of accused No.9 namely M\/s. Dhanapriya
\nHousing and Finance Ltd. have been transferred to Current<\/p>\n
Account No.O1-OO2133 of M\/s. Sona Exim <\/p>\n
maintained at Corporation Bank, Canton-rnentm\ufb01ranhchjr4_<\/p>\n
Bangalore and later withdrawn byr*’C’.\/\\l’-45_Co.oa’itlrylelllwani’asf <\/p>\n
shown below:\n<\/p>\n
S|.No. Cheque No. A -..JE9.ate  ‘
\n1 0495422   ziooo ‘aim-,;23,53,ooo\/–<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
2.8 Thge.:sc.r_utir;\ufb01\/H current account
\nbearing  .\\_\/eejay Dairy Products<\/p>\n
Private  *2 to Accused No.2 of the
\nCorporationi. Bank,”‘VCa:n’togn’in.ent Branch, Bangalore which is<\/p>\n
cited” as Cwhargetshle-et document i\\lo.D–27O shows that<\/p>\n
 wia’s.._withdrawn by CW-4 Gopal Meiwani as shown<\/p>\n
 Cheque No. Date Amount
\n“l 0499685 28.4.2000 RS.2,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
2 0499684 28.4.2000 RS.3,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
2.9 Exhibit D–~14(a), a document produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution at the instance of A-3 also discloses that CW–4
\n{,3\/,<\/p>\n
  t4.,cg”‘i4.89529 7.6.1999 RS.23,3S,OOO\/–<\/p>\n
Gopal Melwani received a sum of USD 20,000\/–. That the
\n161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of CW–4 Gopal Melwani further<\/p>\n
discloses that he sometimes received cash in LJ$’i’..\u00a7oiV_Iars<\/p>\n
and some cash through Bank in his account__i;’n”‘t\u00a7–\u00abS_j-i\u00a7o!ia_rsM_<\/p>\n
at Hongkong.\n<\/p>\n
2.10 Extract of currentZg\u00e9acc-ountAibheari-no”if-!Xl_o’:iQ_i–<\/p>\n
002106 of accused No.8 Com_panvr-Mi\/’s.V <\/p>\n
and Traveis Ltd. maintainedi’ -at Coriporation Bank,
\nCantonment 8ranch,\u00ab_..V:.”B’a’nga_i’o:re=ji-nnarked as E><.D15<\/p>\n
discloses that._the frauduiieriite\u00e9 a"rno'unts transferred<\/p>\n
fromVvi"'C'anar;a' \u00ab\u00a75:i<f'1:r'1i<"'~.Vi:\u00a7'ie're\u00e9"'wi'ti'icirawn by CW–S Arjun<\/p>\n
Meiwaini. as 'shown. bielownz\u00e9t' <\/p>\n
_ iSix.""\u00ab.F CheVque~~._i\u00a7lo~.."it Date Amount<\/p>\n
1 N0-\n<\/p>\n
   048’9–s-9* 8.5.1999 Rs.1,98,00,000\/–<\/p>\n
V2.~1if.\u00bb*TChe scrutiny of the Extract of current account<\/p>\n
Abearinghi’ No.01–0O2133 of M\/s. Sona Exim Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n
uh’-.,V’he|.onging to A-2 maintained at Corporation Bank,<\/p>\n
_.:%Cantonment Branch, Bangaiore which is cited as Charge<\/p>\n
sheet document No.D–267 shows that fraudulent loan<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
belonging to accused No.2, maintained at Corporation
\nBank, Cantonment Branch, Bangalore, which is cited as
\ncharge sheet document No.D–266 reveais that an’1jo’u}fit,,:w,as<\/p>\n
withdrawn by Gopal Melwani as shown below:-,7<\/p>\n
Sl.No. Cheque No. Date    V<\/p>\n
l 1 484826 5.1.2601   C<\/p>\n
3.3 The evidence adlduicedg du’ringi’the:’gtrial, the
\ndocuments which are;i_,_’r’Ti.arl<.'ed\u00a7.bVoth'.as\u00ab.,ExhibitV- P–series
\nand Exhibit — I3: seriesthe"'co'u'rVse'V'of the trial, the<\/p>\n
documents s_ei4:'Lf;,d:.'Vdur\u00abing:_the.'_'cou"rs'e~~–oi\u00b0 the investigation,<\/p>\n
the docume,ri,t.s.;fi\u00a5i:.e'd "a'nd.'c'ite'd~~V–ir"i support of the charge
\nsheethv-.an'd sta'te'rnerit,s:'=._rec_orded u\/s 161(3) based on<\/p>\n
charge sxheetvvcitedA'doci.iments during the course of the<\/p>\n
  inv\u00e9stiigliatign by"'P\\rii_a.2'9 P.M. Satish, the Chief Investigation<\/p>\n
 ' .\u20ac)f'fi–~cei*'..,ofi  case, dearly establishes beyond doubt that<\/p>\n
theilonl<oV'njgV..ei3ased NRIs are involved in fraud in this case.<\/p>\n
 That investigation was conducted by the CBI in a<\/p>\n
A  ma'i~afide manner.\n<\/p>\n
4. The counter is filed by the CBI in the Court beiow<\/p>\n
wherein it is stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
4.1 Prosecution filed charge sheet against Shri DA\/.
\nKamder and Qthers under sections 1208 rfw 420, 467,<\/p>\n
468, 471 and 477(A) IPC and Section 13(2) r\/w_i3(c:_)(d)<\/p>\n
of PC Act, 1988. The ailegation against <\/p>\n
that they were parties to a criminal conspi~i”‘ar_.yj,.,  <\/p>\n
Bangaiore, during the period <\/p>\n
Canara Bank, Maileswara-r.n Branch, :B’ang,a_|ore\u00a7, <\/p>\n
dishonestly and fraudu|entiyki’n’\u00a7si’epreiseniting the facts to
\nthe bank, diverted bank ;fe.nds’\u00bb.py~.forging documents<\/p>\n
and valuable ..securiti.e-so jsutp’  deposit receipt,<\/p>\n
Power ‘d’ocu’n\ufb021e’r”.vtVS–,”‘\u00a7using them as genuine,
\ninduced’ Canavraf’SanV\u00a3c;c’s._i\u00a7ia{‘\u00a5eswaram Branch, to part with
\nthe proceeds of ~l__oa_n ‘axvaiied against the security of FCNR<\/p>\n
d:ge3’poEs_gi’tS_,__ w’ith’ou.t._..the knowledge and consent of the<\/p>\n
‘ wdepovsjqtorsi.:\u00a7’n–._favour of Accused No.2 and the account of<\/p>\n
” his’ grouVp’j_co’mpanies.\n<\/p>\n
~ vV’4;_2VThe averments made in the petition that CBE has<\/p>\n
  made any verification on the complaint given by<\/p>\n
 B.\\\/.Pai, DGM, Canara Bank to Sh. Santosh Macherta, DIG<\/p>\n
of CB1, and not registered a case, is not correct. It is<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
stated that after thorough verification, the CBI has
\nregistered a case on source information in Crime No.RC<\/p>\n
5\/E\/2000\/BSFC\/BLR. It is stated that the vVC,’$:’1T\u00bb,.has<\/p>\n
received written compiaint dt.11.12.2OO{),….:.O’d’g’\u00a2;j’.1’Jby<\/p>\n
Sii.V.V. Pai, DGM, Canara Bank, which is..m:_af#,<ned.::'as <\/p>\n
It is stated that much before
\nfrom the bank, the CB1, had"._TConduc V A
\nverification regarding the in'ft;.:ftF\ufb02",'A'ationV"r'eceived'1':on source
\nand decided to regi_s"ter
\nconducted after the  aiso could not
\nestablish tije'i';;~r:o'ie'V::.Qf =:;a.ny':'~gf'~:."t'i\\.a..jfAdepositors in the
\nconspirfagcfv  is stated that the above
\nmentioned  depositors, whose hard<\/p>\n
earneci mofneyfwas canvassed as Fixed Deposits to Canara<\/p>\n
  Branch, by Accused No.2 and 3. Sh.\n<\/p>\n
if    with dishonest and frauduient intention<\/p>\n
re\u00abp|ac’eG’~,t:he original Account Opening Forms sent by the<\/p>\n
 _ lV\\iRI.depositors and placed bogus Account Opening Forms<\/p>\n
A”iA,_V’co-n’itaining the forged signatures and forged passport<\/p>\n
-Tfcopies of the depositors in the bank records. Sh. D.V.<\/p>\n
Kunder (Ami) sanctioned or caused to be sanctioned<\/p>\n
  imugii<\/p>\n
l ”\n<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
sundry loans under valuable security loan (VSL) in favour<\/p>\n
of the NRI depositors without their knowled.9iie,,’_:’ia_nd<\/p>\n
request, based on false power of attorney\u00a7’_:”d”ocii.i;m_er-its’<\/p>\n
purported to be executed by the NR1 deposiiti:}jjr’s:’w <\/p>\n
amount siphoned off by the acL:,use_d_g.3 i:4’v.en,’<\/p>\n
bank had mentioned the n.a’m.es ofVl\\_lF\u00a7I de~,:o%s.i;torsVVVin <\/p>\n
complaint dt. 11.12.2000  verification
\nrevealed that theYfare  of the fraud
\ncommitted by ,,otherVA,.a.cc_useclVV,’ The evidence
\nadduced be,r:\u00a7r\u00e9}i,5,\u00a2  officials, clearly
\n repaid the amount due
\nto   WThe depositors had filed
\ncomplaiiiwt,agains.tth’e\u00bb:b’a:ni<' irvith the Banking Ombudsman,<\/p>\n
whoi'-diggrectediwthe  to pay the amount to the<\/p>\n
 ".fi:_e..i1'averments that NRI depositors are the real<\/p>\n
 beneficliaries of the fraud committed in the case, is not<\/p>\n
if  colriect. The documents mentioned in the petition through<\/p>\n
'which the petitioner\/accused alleges that Sh. Gopal<\/p>\n
W'Melwani and Sh. Arjundas Melwani had withdrawn amount<\/p>\n
\u00e9iy"\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
are not connected with this case. Those documents are
\npertaining to CC. i\\io.190\/2002 (RC 4\/E\/2000–BSFC;’\u00ab.BLR),<\/p>\n
which has been disposed by the Court below <\/p>\n
Accused No.1 and 3. The modus operandi adlolptedi  <\/p>\n
accused in c.c. No.190\/2002 is””sirr.ilai; to that :o’f7=th’i’s<\/p>\n
case. The accused in connivance’._wlth’ Sh.”l_<_,. 'Va'rand:.ar~aj'a~.,,<\/p>\n
Pai (A4) in c.c. No.190\/2oof2,,,who was.furi't:r,i"c$riing as'<\/p>\n
Senior Manager of Co:'rpV.orat,io'n *i\u00a7a:n'lu<:';ii.Qanton'rnein:t branch,
\nBangalore, with  intention
\nreplaced theyc—ri:g'inal  sent by the
\nNR1 depossiltorss  Account Opening Form<\/p>\n
conta.inin_g_AlAlti5ie1sforgedll's_igna'tures and forged passport
\ncopies\ufb02ofi'  the bank records. He<\/p>\n
sanctioned 'V s-und'ry loans under valuable security loan<\/p>\n
 :,fii'i j"f~a_your the NR1 depositors without their<\/p>\n
   aA'n.r.l–:"request, based on false power of attorney<\/p>\n
dAo'c_um_eritsf~"purported to be executed by the NR1<\/p>\n
 cdepositors and loan amount siphoned off by the accused.<\/p>\n
 the cheques mentioned in the petition, the<\/p>\n
 2 …accused transferred the amount to NRO SB account<\/p>\n
opened without the knowledge of the NR1 depositors and<\/p>\n
2} '
\nV<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
used the amount to close VSL loans fraudulently availed<\/p>\n
by the accused. Cheque No.O49968S and O499684[:b’oth<\/p>\n
dated 28.4.2000 for Rs.2 lacs and Rs.3 lacs, ra:aipaca0ua_u,c<\/p>\n
which are marked in c.c. N0.190\/2002 are.V_cas.h <\/p>\n
through which the amount was wi;thdra4w’\u00abn”‘b:y’ithe <\/p>\n
by forging the signature of  Gopalhl\ufb02elwani-‘;.l_ .’f’i:”i’ierefore’V”swaV<\/p>\n
it is stated that the docunaerits mehti’oh-ed.”c;:b\u00a7r the
\npetitioner in the aboveD’p.etit_i’on’V_  at all connected<\/p>\n
with this case.\n<\/p>\n
4.4  for dismissing the
\napplicatilolny
\nSui xhax\/_e i:e_arcJ~tbh’e.Eiearned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
as wellas the !.earn7ed counsel for the respondent.<\/p>\n
 h  A4’6f”-it isthe countient\u00e9on of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
 statement can be relied while arraying<\/p>\n
the”-acctgvsedik it The documents reveal that there is a prima<\/p>\n
u”””~..V:”‘facsiLe  against the accused. The document which he<\/p>\n
 _ ‘ re’ii\u00bbess”is Ex.D7. The evidence discloses prima facie case<\/p>\n
  …a–g’;iainst CW\u00bb~3, CW–41, CWs.4 and S.<\/p>\n
6:? .\n<\/p>\n
Kw’<\/p>\n
‘w.\\<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
7. Learned counsei for the petitioner relies on the<\/p>\n
following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
1. AIR 2001 SC 2521 (RAKESH vs STATE osgtggai\u00e9niminia)<\/p>\n
wherein the Hon’b|e Supreme Court has   <\/p>\n
“It cannot be said that the.__ter_m j’1ie'{rid.ence””as-..__
\nused in 5.319 wouldgmgean \u00e9eyid-encegg,wh’ic|’i” isj
\ntested by cross–examin-ati’ogn. i”n.eVqvuestfionuwofs
\ntesting the e\\4.idencegi.——b\u00a7;I’v-_cross-e\u00a7_<:a_rfnining the<\/p>\n
 pi\u00e9i;or "–.fg–._V'a'dd'*ing"% such person as
\n:'aaccuseVd'\u00a77.'f-_Ser;t'i'o_n"V—doe's not contempiate an
\naddi4tionai._st'age:_4'b{:fi'."st summoning the person
\nA._Vandia""giving.'-  opportunity of cross-
\n Ee\u00a7<amining\u00ab…_t.he witness who has deposed
\nhim and thereafter deciding whether
\n  'per-son is to be added as accused or not.
\n\\(\\.'orit:J:-_.";'evidence" occurring in sub-section is<\/p>\n
f ..  in comprehensive and broad sense which
\nVvwouid aiso inciude the material coliected by the
\ninvestigating officer and the material or
\nevidence which comes before the Court and<\/p>\n
from which the Court can prima facie conciude<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
that person not arraigned before it is involved<\/p>\n
in the commission of the crime.”\n<\/p>\n
10. Hence, once the Sessions Court records <\/p>\n
statement of the witness it wouid be  <\/p>\n
the evidence. It is true that finaily at   H<\/p>\n
of triai the accused is_,t.o.__be <\/p>\n
opportunity to cross–exami,ne,-the uwitn.ess4″to\u00bb.,___ <\/p>\n
test its truthfulness. But thatstage w,’0′.u.|’d” not’; <\/p>\n
arise while exercising’-v…,:C’ourt’s vpow_eii. Vttnd’e’r”<\/p>\n
Section 319, cr..P.c.  the de’pos_itio,n is
\nrecorded, no  {there no cross-\n<\/p>\n
exarnination, it wo_u’fid_V material
\nwhich :.wo.,ul*_cl e:hah’zel,,.:theftsgtgyssmhs Court to<\/p>\n
decide”‘~whfet’ner._: powers ftsnder Section 319<\/p>\n
?shoutd”b.e not. Sub–section(1) of<\/p>\n
\u00e9ection 319:\u00bbltseif_:p”l=o\\.*ides that in the course of<\/p>\n
any”–..i_nqvuiVry__ iAnt’o’,\u00ab…’~7or triai of, an offence, it<\/p>\n
 appears’ from the evidence that any person not<\/p>\n
 accused has committed any offence<\/p>\n
 ,f” such person could be tried together<\/p>\n
A Wltl;i’..’:_’t.h\u20ac accused, the Court may proceed<\/p>\n
 . agyainst such person for the offence for which<\/p>\n
he appears to have committed. Further in case<\/p>\n
 of inquiry there may not be any question of<\/p>\n
cross-examining the witness.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a38<\/p>\n
13. Hence, it is difficult to accept the<\/p>\n
contention of the learned counsel for the—.,_<\/p>\n
apneilants that the term ‘evidence’ as used”~in*\u00ab\u00ab.._i’~~.<\/p>\n
Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code__;’vv’o’ui’d–.!:25<\/p>\n
mean evidence which is tested <\/p>\n
examination. The question’ “of t.est:i.ng-VXthe-[3 <\/p>\n
evidence by cross–examin’atio’ni*~”wofu.ld”_.arise’ii”–~_V”1″<\/p>\n
only after addition ofthe_._accused. VTh.e’r’e._:<\/p>\n
question of cross–exam’i’n.f:ng theV’w_it’neVss ‘prior
\nto adding such’ ~p_erso.ii””as[iaccusedif “Section
\ndoes not contemp’|cate~i__a\u00a7n\u00abivadditiolnal stage of
\nfirst surnmoning.-theiipelrson  him an
\nopportu niiltv-h   cross–e”>”<a:nrri'rri n.g..7 the witness<\/p>\n
who"  d"\u00e9poseciic'j'–a\u00a7–a__in'Vst"v\ufb01hinri and thereafter<\/p>\n
 person is to be added as<\/p>\n
":.accused""o'r~-_anotfml)\\ivo_rd -"evidence" occurring in<\/p>\n
s'u.b?sectio_n'   in comprehensive and<\/p>\n
._broa"d Visencs-eA'whi'ch would also include the<\/p>\n
 Ernaterialh"co!.l.e(:ted by the Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
_an_d–.:t'h,e material or evidence which comes<\/p>\n
1  Court and from which the Court can<\/p>\n
priirngafacie conclude that person not arraigned<\/p>\n
.. 'before it is involved in the commission of the<\/p>\n
crime."\n<\/p>\n
.\u00a7 \/’<\/p>\n
*1-we’<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
2. 1993 SCC (cr|.) 470 (KISHUN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
\nSTATE OF BIHAR) wherein the Hon’b|e Supreme Court<\/p>\n
has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“13. This Court in Raghubans Du\ufb01ey’ <\/p>\n
State of Bihar stated  _
\ncognizance of an offence
\nbecomes the Court’s duty
\nthe offenders rea|iy–_._are’V’a.n’d if
\nfinds ‘that apart fro’m:_V’the peVrs.ori’s-rseniti up<\/p>\n
by the po:”iC!_e some’tdvt.o4th”e-.5′ persoristare
\ninvolved, itH’i’s’ia.its”duV\u00a7tY. to’-V\ufb01roiceed against
\nthose. personsjj  them<\/p>\n
be’caif\u00a7;js.eV’t.hie siur1’1;m’on::\u00e9’rig =of…the additional<\/p>\n
 ——–   vv\u00e9s ‘piartf oaf’t’ne\u00ab voroceeding initiated
\nV –. “i’t.sf.utaki’n’g::cognizance of an offence’.
\n 4’E_ve’n=._after:_4t*he”ioresent Code came into
\nf\ufb02f’or_:Ce~,.,’.’- thvefiiegal position has not<\/p>\n
‘ V__unde’rg~o_n_e’a change; on the contrary the
\n:\u00ab_–.riat,io of Dubery case was affirmed in
\n Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
 far there is no difficuity.\n<\/p>\n
“14. We have now reached the crucial point
\nin our journey. After cognizance is taken
\nunder Section 190(1) of the Code, in
\nwarrant–cases the Court is required to<\/p>\n
frame a charge containing particulars as to<\/p>\n
2%<\/p>\n
the time and place of the alieged offence
\nand the person (if any) against whom, or<\/p>\n
the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was”–._<\/p>\n
committed. But before framing the
\nSection 227 of the Code provides  -1-\n<\/p>\n
upon a consideration of the reco.r.d,_’4_fo.f’t.he,_<\/p>\n
case and the doc1J’m’e’nts,_1,subm’itted”-:7’I<\/p>\n
therewith, the Sessions, Juidgie <\/p>\n
that there is notV’\u00ab\u00abS_’LIi*fic’ie.n’t gro’u’aciv,._,foVr..3<\/p>\n
proceeding against t’h.e_”accused,”he sigali,
\nfor reasons be .~r’\u00e9corded’,–.,_disch\u00a7fge.~yhe
\naccused. It “i’s’\ufb01onI’y+__when”stirredBudge is of
\nopinion. that Vt.he~re:-is’ *–g\u00e9rVo_unt.’_ ” presuming<\/p>\n
that_”the.c.accuised, i”ias”‘co’rn”mvitted an offence<\/p>\n
 1111 “that”j;heA:’:ii:;i~ii pr\u00a2c.\u00a2\u00e9d”i:ioVsrEame a charge and<\/p>\n
recordrthiei’n,,iea,,of..ti1e accused (vide Section<\/p>\n
” .2_28).’  immediately clear that<\/p>\n
fof.i.imit’edVA’purpose of deciding whether<\/p>\n
 not’*to….\u00abframe a charge against the<\/p>\n
 :.accu\u00absed, the iudge wouid be required to<\/p>\n
it “-T4:”ie\u00a7_<afnivi.r'ie the record of the case and the<\/p>\n
v..d:o:cuVments submitted therewith, which<\/p>\n
tg_wVou|d comprise the police report, the<\/p>\n
 statements of witnesses recorded under<\/p>\n
Section 161 of the Code, the seizure-\n<\/p>\n
memoranda, etc., etc. If, on application of
\nmind for this iimited purpose, the Judge<\/p>\n
finds that besides the accused arraigned<\/p>\n
if}.\n<\/p>\n
x:\u00bb\/\/<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
before him the complicity or involvement of<\/p>\n
others in the commission of the crime prima <\/p>\n
facie surfaces from the material <\/p>\n
before him, what course of action sh.o’uidv  <\/p>\n
adopt ?\n<\/p>\n
16. We have already indicated <\/p>\n
ratio of this Court’s dec-iisionsffii-n the c:a’ses-..Qf <\/p>\n
Raghubans Dubey and l-l’a..re’i’am that:”on’ce the
\nCourt takes cogniizanceyof  offencef(n’0t’*”t4he
\noffender) it becomes..theffC;;)u’i*t’f’s..jdutwy to find
\nout the real offendeirs.and:_if’i’t,  to the
\nconciusi:oh’\u00abth}3t besides’  put up for
\ntrial \u00a7.by5._tfi3e-.’;’-_Vp’oi:i:cg;’ others are also
\ninvolyeri’iini\ufb02tihgff the crime, it is
\nthe CouA’rt'<l.sVd_u:'ty to:su_rrim.on them to stand trial
\nalong ~ with'*3':_ijthbo's~efA"~.a'lready named, since
\nsumrrioyningywft-heinif 'wtiuld only be a part of the<\/p>\n
jffroicess of.._.takinc co nizance. We have also
\n';.p  .3<\/p>\n
 4'po'Ai"nteVd~.y_out  difference in the language of
\nif '*S:e'cti"o-n" of the two Codes; under the old<\/p>\n
'.Court of Session was precluded from
\ntakingi "cognizance of any offence as a Court of<\/p>\n
o"r'i.g\u00e91'nal jurisdiction unless the accused was<\/p>\n
if Vfi"'–.committed to it whereas under the present<\/p>\n
V'"Code the embargo is diluted by the<\/p>\n
replacement of the words the accused by the<\/p>\n
words the case. Thus, on a plain reading of<\/p>\n
I\/..\u00bb<\/p>\n
{"""CT\u00e9<\/p>\n
Section 193, as it presently stands once the<\/p>\n
case is committed to the Court of Session bya-._\u00bb<\/p>\n
Magistrate tinder the Code, the restrir:7't'i"o.h_'–\u00ab.V""._<\/p>\n
placed on the power of the Court of Se_s<\u00a7i'o'n"l~t'\u00a7t,.,.: :_. <\/p>\n
take cognizance of an offence as <\/p>\n
originai jurisdiction getsj'|ifted.A_  in<\/p>\n
Magistrate committing the :'tiasi\u00e9.'iu'hdei*
\n209 to the Court of Sess.i_on the bar of';'S'ecti.oVnV–<\/p>\n
193 is lifted thereby 'iht\/Teisting "t~h.e"*C-out\ufb01t of
\nsession completeand i.i'nfettei5ed__jurisdicitioh of
\nthe Court of  to take
\ncognizance of the-offence' include
\nthe su'm'i'ij;o'i1in(j-. of  or persons<\/p>\n
whose Ctorhp?i.it_tity.ij;;.i;fi'*~–  V"vcom'mission of the<\/p>\n
t.rime_ic-an 'p;ri-m"a_ facie "iae "gathered from the<\/p>\n
:r_nat.eriaVl'aQailai;ii'e.to'h.. record. The Fuil Bench of<\/p>\n
the_HighC.ou'rt' rightly appreciated the<\/p>\n
._shifta"inV_:'Section V193 of the Code from that<\/p>\n
 a_nde_r the"o!..d….Code in the case of Sk. Lutfur
\nP~a~hmi\u00e9'i"-a<\/p>\n
1T7t':FYC}f;:.the reasons stated above while we are<\/p>\n
'..ing_ agreement with the submission of the<\/p>\n
  learned counsel for the appellants that the<\/p>\n
 stage for the exercise of power under Section<\/p>\n
319 of the Code had not reached, inasmuch as<\/p>\n
the trial had not commenced and evidence was<\/p>\n
hot ied, since the Court of Session had the
\n(\/1,<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
power under Section 193 of the Code to
\nsummon the appellants as their involvement in<\/p>\n
the commission of the crime orima facie
\nappeared from the record of the case,
\nno reason to interfere with the impugne_c\u00a7”o–rdVe’r__J:115
\nas it is well settled that once it is
\nthe power exists the exercisewofIpowe’r’V”‘u’ir’i–&i’era4.:j_
\nwrong provision will not ren\u00bbderfth..e ord_e’r  <\/p>\n
or invalid. We, therefore, dism_is’s thissVa”ppeai”  1’<\/p>\n
3. 1994 Crl.LJ 305 (SW. ._vs RADHAKANTA<\/p>\n
PATRA AND.OTHEl?;S)\u00bb.’w’herei’n_ tiaeeclaiciuua High Court<\/p>\n
has observed-fas u,r2’dei%.r_<\/p>\n
:”;_”‘(A)’  (1974), S5319, 161 –\n<\/p>\n
S’um4rnlonin.;1jnot charge sheeted ~
\nA._.Stateroents’.’~of\u00b0.witrzess recorded under S.161
\n iEmplui%_cating’persons sought to be summoned,
\nasA\u00ab.Va<;:ti~ve participants in crime —- Court may<\/p>\n
 loo-\u00a7<V\u00bbC'_ii1.Eo.-'i't and summon them under 3319.<\/p>\n
 'Evidence' — Term used under 8.319 —- Import
\n of — Includes statement made by witness
\n under S.161, Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
In the different provisions of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure Code the word ‘evidence’ has been<\/p>\n
“3
\nav,<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
used in different senses so as to connote<\/p>\n
proposed or possible evidence or evidence<\/p>\n
adduced Oi’ in bath senses depending upon th_e_<\/p>\n
context. It can be seen that the <\/p>\n
‘evidence’ used in Section 319, Cr.P.C. inci–u.’des_i’  <\/p>\n
or refers to both proposed or possible eviderce <\/p>\n
as welt as the evidence adduced,  <\/p>\n
course the proposed or possibl;-=1ievid’ence”mi3sft..__ <\/p>\n
have a sustainable basis and it mustinoit bet’; u<\/p>\n
merely speculative. ;i_S”~._gOr exa.mp.iye’,: the<\/p>\n
statement recorded und-ery””S_e’ctiAon 161i,..,.Cr..’i7>.C.
\nclearly shows ti~.–.e:”pai’iticiiipati’o_n.i of__a person in
\nthe commission otfian offe:nce~..but_’;Vsi:ch person<\/p>\n
has notn._b’_e.enE,incluIdedA”‘*a’_s.uyacicuised in the<\/p>\n
iic’ha’rge’+;she’e;ti’–  m’i’stai2e or for any<\/p>\n
li.unexpla\u00a7’ne’d__”1_reason,’ ‘ the Court in an<\/p>\n
appropriate’ take notice of such<\/p>\n
.,statement..r’ecord\u00e9d under 5.161, Cr.P.C., and<\/p>\n
 a_lso.__take”a*ct.i.o.ni on the basis of the same under<\/p>\n
.F:3ecti.on._.319, Cr.P.C. However, while looking<\/p>\n
  statement Court has to be cautious<\/p>\n
and “careful. Further it is aiso to be noted that<\/p>\n
1 ~. the word ‘may’ used in Section 319(1) makes<\/p>\n
 rather optional and discretionary for the trial<\/p>\n
1 Court to take any action under the said<\/p>\n
section.\n<\/p>\n
5′?\n<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
’25<\/p>\n
In order to be ‘evidence’ within the meaning of<\/p>\n
Section 319, Cr.P.C. the concerned statement<\/p>\n
or document wiii not oniy have to answer..t’h.e’\u00ab…_i’~~.<\/p>\n
description as given in the definition of t_h_\u00e9”sa.i_d–.:_’:  <\/p>\n
term in Section 3 of the Evidence ActV’:’b~.u.t’t_heS.4 S<\/p>\n
same must also be admiss’i’bie,ar[d _re:liev_antr~.i’.V <\/p>\n
under the provisions of:’A:4iav\u00a7’iA.as <\/p>\n
applicable to a case in<;lu_ding"t_he pros_s;-\u00bbi'stigrW.SVgof<\/p>\n
the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
(B) Criminal VP’;-CI’J.(1.974),””‘Sf;…’\u00bb”1–.51, 162 —
\nStatement  ~.witness ”.”’recorded under
\n Ev=i_degnt:i~’ary.v’a-iise_QfQ. Statement<\/p>\n
 ‘by?  hwi–t;_nes.:gj–…__ V’ ‘d_uri’ng._: investigation —<\/p>\n
 ssss  .\u00a7$irati\u00a2icia:gvv.ors.5—i\\io\u00a3’barr\u00e9d by S.162 of the
\nV   ‘<\/p>\n
Thestatement”r:e’cogrded under S.161, Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
‘and fo=rvv’arded to the Magistrate under Section
\n 135(5),  along with the charge-sheet<\/p>\n
avre..%-ovbviously documents produced for the<\/p>\n
V’i’insfpe:ctiS’on:*’of the Court in connection with the<\/p>\n
 con.sid.eration of framing of charge and for<\/p>\n
it other’ purposes and therefore these recorded<\/p>\n
‘A statements answer the description of<\/p>\n
.:documentary evidence as contained in Section<\/p>\n
3 of the Evidence Act. Such statements
\nrecorded under Sec.161, Cr.P.C. can aiso be<\/p>\n
viewed as proposed or possibie orai evidence
\nis\/’<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
coming within the definition of evidence as<\/p>\n
contained in the said Section 8 of the Evidence-._<\/p>\n
Act because the makers of such recor\u00abd’e-rif”–\u00ab.V”‘–._<\/p>\n
statements are expected to make.lV_:'”su”c.h’—-..__f1- <\/p>\n
statements while examined in <\/p>\n
proposed or possibie evidence ‘ho.we.ver\u00abca’n._be”~7<\/p>\n
adduced in evidence in Codrt  ifiiithe’ <\/p>\n
is admissible and reriievant \ufb02u-nderg <\/p>\n
doubt 5.162, Cr.P.C,\u00b0*..:_b’ars Vti”..e:u”‘Lise’:’:, of
\nstatements recorded ,.\u00ab’Ur;’dVi_,e:r V\u00b0S_._161′,'”Cr;”i5.C.
\nexcept for the pijrpose–s__ in the said
\nsection, h,owevevr….E\u00bbn:._spite of 5.162
\nthe said””?,\u00a7ctioi*1.  “‘F1:’:3,Vt’:-V”be….taJ<en to be
\nrestr;a'i'n'i',n..g:i'th'?e_  notice of the
\nsv'tatre–n;I,:\u00e9n'ts:'::?er:o"i*i1,ed 'un'de'r'":S.161, Cr.P.C. in
\n 'i for some limited<\/p>\n
puirposes'.  fo'r._"examp|e, for the limited<\/p>\n
_.purpose_:'of..considering the question whether<\/p>\n
a,n_'accuse'd'vs.houid be refeased on baii under<\/p>\n
  439 or on anticipatory bail under<\/p>\n
  the concerned Court including<\/p>\n
  Court very often has to, and does<\/p>\n
.Iouoi< into the statements recorded under S.161,<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. Then again, in considering the<\/p>\n
 -Vquestion whether in a sessions tria! case,<\/p>\n
based on poiice report, itharge in required to
\nbe framed under 8.228 read with Ss.226 and<\/p>\n
227, C.r.,P.C. and if so, under what heads, the
\n2-:2<\/p>\n
1.3%,\u00bb<\/p>\n
’27<\/p>\n
Court of Session has to consider, amongst
\nother materiais, if any, the statements of
\nwitnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P,C__._
\nSimiiarly, in a warrant procedure case started_:Z_
\non the basis of a police report, under
\nand 240, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate
\nconsider the statements recorded Lj-nd\u00e9r:::S.’i61’_’
\nand forwarded under S.17.:3, :Cr:i>.’4Cu.p,.:4.f’o’r4’thet._’_r~:.e–uA\u00e9
\npurpose of deciding. _whe4ther-.. thepy’.iacc’used’1~.A”
\nshould be discharged’–v..t:o’~:yp charge’
\nframed against him Aa.n2df..i_f’~~..so, .ui1-d.eArVA)rirhat
\nsections. Sect;-on’– 16:2,;;_C.r.’P.._Ci..’cannot be so
\ninterpreted as to V_ba_r ti.o’oStin.g..finto__’statements<\/p>\n
recorded-iyyiwundejr  in such<\/p>\n
 ‘rnen’ti~on\u00a7ed above. It is
\n:7,therefor’e’eypide’n’it:ti:.at 5.162, Cr.P.C. does not
\nbatlooking’tinto”\u00ab–..’sta’tements recorded under
\n_,S.l641,._:Cr*.P’;Ct\u00b0for”‘having a preiiminary idea as
\n  whatAAWav3…purp0rting|y stated by the witness
\nV _ ..duriniginvestigation.”\n<\/p>\n
   counsei for the respondent supports the<\/p>\n
im.pu9._hed:\u00a7?’order passed by the triai Court. Learned<\/p>\n
 tcounsei; for the respondent reiies on the decision of the<\/p>\n
it ‘-rV_V’H–o–rri’bie Supreme Court in the case of KAILASH .\\\/S. STATE<\/p>\n
\ufb01x<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
OF RALEASTHAN reported in AIR 2008 SC 1564 wherein the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court has heid as under:<\/p>\n
“(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), <\/p>\n
Summoning of additional accused –_pgo’w{erfof
\nCourt ~ Court has to be:-‘ci’rcui7’?Sii?\u20acQqt”wiiifie-‘[3
\nexercising power.   1 i _   .\n<\/p>\n
Provisions of .78-.319   3
\nsuggest that during th’ei’i\u00bbt:r’ial it has ‘trod-apipceair
\nfrom the evidence that'”a  notfbe-in~gVEan
\naccused has committe\u00abd_  for which
\nsuch person couldihbie tried t.og’e’tVhcge;\u00a5’ with the
\naccuse_d”‘.igh’o are aiso  The key
\nwords  aie  appears from the
\n_e\\rigd_e’n.ce’;’1–1 committed any
\nI_offenice’;_..___I3t, is..:_no__t,. therefore, that merely
\nbecause’ so’nj’e>i’v\\ii_:thes’ses have mentioned the
\n_ narne ofVsuch~.,_’p’e.i\u00b0’son or that there is some
\n uvrf*.ateriai”=.a:g_a_i_nst that person, the discretion
\n:’u:hd:e’i*u.S.319 would be used by the Court. This
\n is  the fact that such person against
\n_ whoifniiiilsuch discretion is used, shouid be a
\n a ‘person who could be tried together with the
\n“accused against whom the triai is already
\ngoing on. The discretion under 3319 has to
\nbe exercised very sparingiy and with caution
\nand only when the concerned Court is satisfied
\nthat some offence has been committed by<\/p>\n
3\/<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
such person. This power has to be essentialiy
\nexercised only on the basis of the evidence. It<\/p>\n
couid, therefore, be used oniy after the iegai–._
\nevidence comes on record and from
\nevidence it appears that the concerned pje’rsot_:
\nhas committed an offence. The  %<\/p>\n
appears’ are not to be read’-I-i’g”rit–2y.”<\/p>\n
9. Learned counsel for the respo”ndent\u00bb”a!’Vso4_relies Von’.<\/p>\n
the decision in the case ofVHii*\u00ab’Vi_’CV:)’i4.[). Si’:-1″.~.xF:'”iI MOHD.
\nRAFIQ reported in S(2.Ai8.9f’9iAdwherein the Hon’b|e<\/p>\n
Supreme Courthas heA|Ad..a’s’~.urideir:  i<\/p>\n
“(A) Hc,jQrir’i’;~;;;\u00bbi-1,_~_g\u00bb: A.tori””1r-$74), s.319–<\/p>\n
.a’dd’itionaiwaccused — Exercise<\/p>\n
of \u00b0 :discreti’o’ndV must arrive at<\/p>\n
sat’i”s.faictVio’n_thatttzere exists possibility that<\/p>\n
‘  “accused\u00bb;Mmmoned in ail iikelihood wouid<\/p>\n
i  be “c:onvicte’d””iV– Such satisfaction can be<\/p>\n
   vat upon completion of cross-\n<\/p>\n
‘ eVx\u00e9anj.inaVt’i.on of witness — No exception thereto<\/p>\n
c.oui-dibe taken far less at instance of witness<\/p>\n
A T “and when State was not aggrieved by same —<\/p>\n
 order passed at instance of witness at stage of
\nA examination under S.161, improper.”<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
10. In this case State is not aggrieved party and it is<\/p>\n
accused who wants to implicate the charge sheetVwei.t4ne_ss.<\/p>\n
Under Section–319 of Code of Criminal Proced_o’rei’\u00abtii_1′.ej: ti1i.:al~.%<\/p>\n
Court has got power to proceed against the–.ot:l1e’r’i~f.pe.rso\u00bbns~., <\/p>\n
who appear to be guilty of the olffencejzifine:’.di’scr’etvi.cona:ry<\/p>\n
power of the Magistrate?-unclercthe se’ction  <\/p>\n
extraordinary power which  he :e_xerc:i’sed very
\nsparingly only if the exvilstif Before
\ntaking cognisance of  the Court
\nmust   :::vi\\ii.e’re””evidence let in the
\nchief–e\u00a7\u20ace’rc_iJ’s’e:__is.<\/p>\n
justified by the tests specificaliy iaid down”in:”vth’eA.i.:se_ctiio’i’i<\/p>\n
itseif. In this case, the accusedyjhjave <\/p>\n
deposition sheet nor the V.de4_posit’i’o_n”*of CWs.\u00e9’Ini’; tiiei’,<\/p>\n
application filed by the accuseidabvefoyre th-ejtriyal  it is
\nmentioned withdrawai  the C81 in
\nhis objection statement it ail reiates
\nto C.C.  .tiii:s”:-cavseiV;iAThe respondent –
\nInvestigati  stated in their objections
\nstatemerityjthat “\u00a7Pai, Deputy Generai Manager,<\/p>\n
Cangara i.Bank”g.,av’e’ a complaint, but source of information<\/p>\n
 TiNo._.VRC 5\/E\/2000\/BSFC\/BLR were verified and<\/p>\n
f_o’iJ.nci  ‘tiAh’e””NRI depositors were not involved in the<\/p>\n
crirne.  learned counsel for the petitioner is unabie to<\/p>\n
 pOi_nt out any evidence connected in this case to point out<\/p>\n
“thaL’:NRIs were invoived in this crime except indicating<\/p>\n
  ‘”-‘about the withdrawai of the amount by the CW5 connected<\/p>\n
with C.C. i\\|o.190\/2002, which is not the point involved in<\/p>\n
 ”\n<\/p>\n
W3<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
this case. It is weil settied Saw that the discretionary
\npower of the Magistrate under this section has to be<\/p>\n
exercised very sparingly and that too with great careitand<\/p>\n
caution and even in the application, it is not”*-rnge.n’t’ion_ed<\/p>\n
what are the acts and omissions commit1tedV_”_:’ey’:tihe4_CWs,._p*.,_<\/p>\n
The finding recorded by the tria31g’CoLi_rAt’ijs1″W\u00a7’ii_’fo:u’n.d.e:d;.a_nd<\/p>\n
does not call for interfere*n._ce at’;_th’–is stsage.. ‘Le:;ar’nied’g<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner has”i’faihied toVrn.aA_i'<eV':ou't:\u00a7a case to
\ninterfere with the impu_'gned.'_VAord'eii Petition is
\ndevoid of merits and  iia'bi.e'itfo._'be dismissed.<\/p>\n
7.__11._ InVV’t’he~\u00ab.r_esugi’t\u00ab,i.\u00bb_E-p_ass.’ the foliowing:<\/p>\n
ip\ufb01bepee<\/p>\n
 A  ‘Criminal Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
sf’
\n33;”\n<\/p>\n
atss\u00e9sasa
\n\ufb01g $\\k;;.:\u00a2;v\u00aba$<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010 Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3″‘ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE C THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARA’_SW\ufb012_i$l:${_V”. . CRIMINAL PETITION N,9\u00ab.S59’1t’i2r0’0’i’2\u00a7’vi”*:: ~ it BETWEEN: C it it C D.V. Kundar, Aged 68 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100709","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nD V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-06T20:51:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-06T20:51:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":5976,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2\",\"name\":\"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-06T20:51:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-06T20:51:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-06T20:51:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2"},"wordCount":5976,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2","name":"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-06T20:51:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kundar-vs-state-by-cbi-on-3-november-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D V Kundar vs State By Cbi on 3 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100709","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100709\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}