IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.206 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI MANISH KUMAR @ NEERAJ SHRIVASTAV @ RAHUL, AGED 29 YEARS, SON OF LALU BABU SHRIVASTAV, R/AT NO.106, BOULIYA RAILWAY STATION, GORAKPURA TALUK & DIST. UTTAR PRADESH-272 154.
2. SRI ALI HUSSAIN @ HUSSAIN ALI @ RAVI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SIKUNDAR, R/AT NEAR CHAWRA MATHA MANDIRA, RAKHAUNA, RAJ TALAB POST, BANARAS DISTRICT, UTTARA PRADESH-272 162.
3. SRI VINOD KULAL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O BABU KULAL, R/AT KUDRADI HOUSE, JALLIGUDDE, DEREBAIL VILLAGE MANGALURU-575 006.
4. SRI PUTTAWAMY M B, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAVAYYA, R/AT HOUSE NO.318, 6-B MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS ROAD, OPP.GOKULAM RAMA MANDIR, MYSURU-570002.
... PETITIONERS (By SMT: GAYATHRI BHAT, ON BEHALF OF SRI : P P HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE - THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAVOOR POLICE STATION, KAVOOR, MANGALURU TALUK -
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT (By Sri. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2018 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K MANGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.43/2014, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN U/S.311 OF CR.P.C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Smt.Gayathri Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.P.Hegde, for petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners along with other co-accused who are facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 25(1-B), 7, 25(1-A) of Indian Arms Act and Sections 143, 120B, 115 read with Section 149 of IPC filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of PW.4, contending interalia that all the questions which were sought to be put to said witnesses had not been allowed and also contending that, he is a stock witness of Barke P.S., Mangaluru North P.S. and Urva P.S., and as such, he is to be further cross- examined to establish that he is a stock witness.
3. Perusal of the impugned order as well as case papers would disclose that, Sessions case is of the year 2011. PW.4 was examined on 29.09.2016 and cross- examination was also conducted and thereafter, prosecution has examined other witnesses who have also been cross-examined. The statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and final arguments advance by prosecution has also been heard. When matter was at the stage of reply arguments application in question has been filed.
4. The prime reason on which recall of witness (PW.4) is sought as could be seen from the averments made in the application was on account of said witness being a stock witness. In the cross-examination, he (PW-4) has admitted that he has answered this question namely – he has appeared before the Courts to tender evidence not only in respect of the case in question, but also in respect of other cases. Definitely, petitioners/accused can make use of said admission. In this background, learned trial Judge has rightly refused to entertain the application for recalling PW-4, which order cannot be found fault with. Same does not suffer from any infirmity, either on facts or in law. No other ground is made out to entertain this petition. Hence, criminal petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DKB