IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5037 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
KARIBASAPPA ANAGOD S/O ONKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS LECTURER IN BUSINESS MATHEMATICS RESIDING AT VIDYA NAGARA DAVANAGERE CITY-577 002. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: HANUMANTHAPPA H.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
2. SMT. K. INDRANI INVESTIGATION OFFICER C/O THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.222/2007 ON THE FILE OF JMFC, CHALLAKERE AND DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO OBTAIN AND TO PRODUCE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO.241/1999 BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is facing charges for the offences under sections 465, 478, 471, 417 read with section 34 of IPC.
2. The accusations against the petitioner are that, in a Writ Petition bearing No.27175/2000, the petitioner herein produced two fake documents namely Annexures-‘B’ and ‘C’ purporting to be the Reminders issued by the Directorate of Pre-University Education dated 11.09.1995 and 30.09.1996 respectively and on the strength of the said documents, attempted to obtain an order in his favour. According to the prosecution, these documents were not issued by the Department, the petitioner manipulated the said documents and tried to obtain an order in the writ petition filed by him before the High Court and hence, he is guilty of the above offences.
3. In the course of trial, the petitioner moved an application under section 91 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the judgment pronounced in Review Petition No.241/1999 passed by the Secretary to the Government, Primary and Secondary Education, Bengaluru and the entire records of the case maintained therein bearing No.ED.118.TPU.1998. In the application, it was stated thus:
“5. That the accused and others were preferred a review petition before the Secretary to the Government, Primary and Secondary Education, Bengaluru in Review petition No.241/1999 praying for review the order passed in Appeal No.13/1999 (ED 14SOH99) dated 07-08-1999. The said Review Petition was duly acknowledged and the process of trail proceedings had begun.” (sic) The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. Learned Magistrate has observed that calling for judgment of the above review petition at this stage is not necessary and that if the accused really wanted the said judgment to confront the same to the witness, he is at liberty to secure the certified copy of the same and produce it before the Court.
4. I do not find any error or illegality in the said order.
First and foremost, the accused has not taken any specific defence and the application filed by him under section 91 of Cr.P.C. is premature and is liable to be rejected solely on that ground. Secondly, the documents sought for by the petitioner are the records of judicial proceedings, certified copies whereof are admissible under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the petitioner can very well obtain the certified copies of the said documents if the same are required in support of the defence set up by the accused.
5. Having regard to the charges framed against the petitioner, the proposed documents appear to be totally irrelevant insofar as case of the prosecution is concerned. As already stated above, accusation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein forged and manipulated Annexures-‘B’ and ‘C’ and produced the same in a writ petition before the High Court to obtain a favourable order. It is not the case of the prosecution that the judgment or the proceedings in review petition are manipulated or forged by the petitioner. Therefore, the said documents are not at all relevant for the purpose of fair decision of the case. Section 91 of Cr.P.C., reads as follows:-
91. Summons to produce document or other thing.-
(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a Police Station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.
(2) Any person required under section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-
(a) to affect, sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.
6. A plain reading of the said section confers a discretion on the court to summon any documents which are necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. Proposed documents are not necessary for fair decision in the case. The trial court was, therefore, well justified in rejecting the application. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss