IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8859 OF 2017 BETWEEN :
SHRI. D.K. MATHUR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE A B LAL R/A NO.286, 6TH BLOCK 18TH MAIN ROAD KORAMANGALA – 560 095 (BY SRI. GANESH KUMAR R, ADV.,) AND :
STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 (REPRESENTED THROUGH SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, STANDING COUNSEL) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2017 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTHA CASES IN SPL.C.C.NO.488/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT DISPOSAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the order dated 26.09.2017.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that, in the above case in Spl. C.C.No.488/2014 before the trial court while cross- examining PW-39 abruptly, the public prosecutor field an application under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C. with a final report which is running about 84 pages and the court immediately forced the counsel to file objections and to further cross-examine PW39. Immediately after filing of the objections, the said application was allowed and the counsel was directed to cross-examine PW39. Without any other go, PW39 was cross-examined though there was no sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to go through the said report. Therefore, learned counsel submits that such an order passed by the trial court hurriedly it caused miscarriage of justice and the same is liable to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent contends before this court that this is a pretty old matter and charge sheet has been already field and in respect of the same, the final report has been submitted to the I.O. A court has granted opportunity to file objections and cross-examine PW39. He also contends that previous conduct of the accused shows that he has deliberately dragged on the matter as far as possible and even at the cost of Rs.10,000/- PW39 was called for cross-examination. Therefore the opportunity was already given by the court to go through the report and cross-examine PW39.
4. A perusal of the order dated 26.09.2017 reads as follows:
“Sri. RGK completes cross of PW 39 PP files an application u/s 242(3) CRPC with final report. Sri. RGK files objects to the production of final report by the IO. While submitting charge sheet and no prejudice will be caused if the application is allowed. Application is allowed. PP to produce final report and for examination of PW 39 Pp produces final report and marks as Ex P 85.
Sri. RGK advocate cross examines PW39”
5. The above said order, in my opinion, is a very cryptic order which does not disclose at least at what time the said final report was filed along with application under Section 242(3) Cr.P.C. and how much time was granted to file objections , how much time was granted for cross-examination of PW39. After long time, an application was filed by the petitioner for recalling the witness of PW39. The court has saddled on him cost of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, any such delay for cross-examination belatedly allowed by the trial court when the petitioner has filed an application for cross- examination of PW39 after long time, it does not mean to say that, all the subsequent proceedings shall be taken up by the court hurriedly without providing an opportunity to the parties. At least, reasonable opportunity is the mandate of Criminal jurisprudence.
6. Under the above said facts and circumstances, the order dated 26.09.2017 deserves to be set aside. Except allowing of the application under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C. and marking of Ex. P85, the learned counsel for accused shall be permitted to further cross-examine PW39 on the report submitted by the I.O. subsequently in order to elicit any contradiction or omission in the earlier report and the subsequent report.
7. Accordingly, the learned trial court is hereby directed to fix-up the date for further cross-examination of PW39 on the report submitted by the public prosecutor on 26.09.2017.
Further, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not, unnecessarily or deliberately drag on the proceedings for cross-examination of PW39.
8. In that view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed.
The trial court is hereby directed to recall PW39 for the purpose of further cross-examination on the report submitted by the learned public prosecutor.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv