IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3211 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Sri.M.K.Marigouda, S/o.Late Kalegouda, Aged about 45 years, Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Kidwai Hospital, Bengaluru, R/o No.48/10, 6th Cross, Bendre Nagar, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560 070.
Permanent Address:
Mikkere Grama & Post, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. … Petitioner (By Sri.P.N.Hegde, Adv.) AND:
State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru District, Represented by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent (By Sri.Venkatesh.S.Arabatti, Special PP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court at Bengaluru, in Special Case No.624/2017 and consequently allow the application filed by petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.P.N.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Venkatesh S.Arabatti, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C’), the petitioner has assailed the validity of the Order dated 08.04.2019, by which, application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., for cross-examination of P.W.2, namely, Assistant Director in Bangalore Urban Treasury Department has been rejected.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was fixed for cross-examination of P.W.2 on 04.12.2018.
However, on the aforesaid date, since the counsel for the petitioner was indisposed, the aforesaid witness could not be examined. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking cross-examination of the aforesaid witness on the ground that on the previous occasion, aforesaid witness could not be cross-examined on account of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner was indisposed. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. It is well settled in law that for the fault committed by a counsel, a party should not suffer.
6. At this stage, it is stated before the Court that the proceedings before the Trial Court are fixed on 07.06.2019. It is therefore, directed that P.W.2 shall remain present before the trial Court on 07.06.2019. On the aforesaid date, the petitioner shall cross-
examine the aforesaid witness. It is further made clear that no further opportunity for cross-examination of P.W.2 shall be granted and in case petitioner fails to cross-examine the aforesaid witness on the said date, the right of cross-examination of the petitioner in respect of P.W.2 shall stand closed. In addition, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- by way of cost to P.W.2 on 07.06.2019 before the trial Court.
7. In the result, the impugned order dated 08.04.2019 made in Special C.C.No.624/2017 on the file of the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru, is quashed. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV