IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 :BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL.RP. NO.968/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/O. ENIGADELE VILLAGE, TALUK: CHINTAMANI, DIST CHIKKABALLAPUR-563 125 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATHA REDDY @ MANJUNATHA, S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O DWARASANDRA VILLAGE, TALUK SRINIVASAPUR, DIST KOLAR -563 101 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLILCE, SRINIVASAPUR POLICE STATION, SRINIVASAPUR, DIST KOLAR, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. V. SRINATHA, ADV. FOR SRI. M. R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R-1. SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-2) THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2017 ON APPLICATION U/S 91 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IN S.C.NO.161/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. S.J., KOLAR.
THIS CRL.RP. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 22.07.2017 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, in SC No.161/2013 under Section 91 of Cr.PC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. It is noticed from the records that, at the time of evidence, the petitioner/Complainant appears to have made an application under Section 91 of Cr.PC. seeking to summon the Manager of State Bank of Mysuru, Srinivasapura Branch to give evidence and to produce jewels alleged to have been pledged by the accused Manjunatha Reddy and also to summon the Manager of Muthoot Finance of Srinivasapura Branch for the same purpose. The trial Court has rejected the said application only on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of these witnesses nor seized those articles. Therefore, the prosecution cannot fill-up the lacunas by summoning the articles and stating that the application is not maintainable, the trial Court has rejected the said application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points-out that, during the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statement of the accused, wherein he has categorically stated that, for the purpose of purchasing water tank he has pledged the articles/jewels belonged to the deceased Manjula in the above institutions and taken loan.
5. On going through the records, I am of the opinion that, whether the articles in question are the properties belonged to the deceased Manjula or not, has to be thrashed-out during the course of trial. But the accused himself has stated about he pledging of these articles, which stated to have been seized by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of the Bank Authoritites, but for inaction of the Investigating Officer, the court is not debarred from exercising powers under Section 91 of Cr.PC. in getting the information from the authorities of the said Banks by summoning the Managers of the said Banks by issuing summons to them. Therefore, I do not think that the order passed by the trial Court is proper and correct. In the above circumstances, Section 91 of Cr.PC. provides ample powers to the court that, at any stage of trial or enquiry, if the court is satisfied with regard to existence of such facts, the court can summon any of such witnesses or any of such properties to the court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the trial Court has committed serious error in rejecting the said application of the petitioner/complainant. In the event of summoning those witnesses to produce those articles, if really these witnesses have got any grievance, they can also put-forth their grievances before the court and the accused would also get opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses.
6. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned under the petition deserves to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 22.07.2017 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.161/2013 registered against the petitioner/complainant under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. , is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the complainantunder Section 91 of Cr.PC. is hereby allowed. The learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to issue summons to the Manager of State Bank of Mysuru and also the Manager of Muthoot Finance of Srinivasapura Branch, to give their evidence and to produce the articles in question, as prayed for.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
KGR* Sd/-
JUDGE