IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6614/2016 BETWEEN:
Sri. B.N. Sudarshan @ Sudheer, S/o. Sri. B.L. Laxminarayana, Aged about 46 years, R/o Darshan, Umamaheshwari Temple Quarters, Gonikoppa District. …Petitioner (By Sri. T. Prakash, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Through Madikeri Town Police Station, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 22.07.2016 in S.C.No.81/2010 on an application filed under Section 231 of Cr.P.C. (document No.1) pending on the file of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in S.C.No.81/2010 whereby the application filed by the respondent (prosecution) under Section 231 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
2. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the very same documents were produced by the Investigating Officer before the District & Sessions Judge along with the supplementary charge sheet, but the same were returned with a direction to present them before the learned Magistrate. Instead of presenting the same before the learned Magistrate, prosecution has sought to produce the very same documents under Section 231 of Cr.P.C and therefore, the impugned order permitting the prosecution to introduce these documents in evidence is liable to be quashed.
3. I have perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 06.05.2016. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
“The Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 15-05-2015 filed by the Respondent-Police under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected and the office is directed to return the same to the Respondent police.
Liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file the said Supplementary Charge Sheet before the Magistrate competent to take cognizance and follow the procedure of the committal, in order to enable this Court to consider the same.
In the alternative, the prosecution is also at liberty to produce such other additional documents during the course of trial, in accordance with law.”
Petitioner has not challenged the above order whereby liberty was granted to the prosecution to produce such other additional documents during the course of trial.
Even otherwise, in my view, Section 231 of code empowers the Court to receive any evidence produced by the prosecution. Section 231 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
“Evidence for prosecution – (1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
(2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.”
Considering the identical provisions under Section 242 of Cr.P.C., this Court in Crl.P.No.4398/2018 dated 23.07.2018 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. M. SUBRAHMANYAM reported in 2019 (6) SCC 357, have considered the question as to whether the documents which are not part of the charge sheet could be received in an evidence for prosecution, after commencement of the trial?
In view of the above proposition of law, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV