IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3763 OF 2014 BETWEEN:-
VIJAYENDRA BABU S/O RAMAKRISHNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 138,2ND STAGE, 1ST BLOCK,H-CROSS,NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072. ……PETITIONER (By Sri: SRININVAS L. ADVOCATE FOR Smt : ANUPAMA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR INDUS LAW ADVS.) AND:
1. MR JAYASREENIVASAN S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.403,PRASHANTHI, 4TH CROSS,7TH MAIN, J P NAGAR,3RD PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078 2. SMT ASHA GEETHA W/O SRI JAYASREENIVASAN, R/AT NO.403,PRASHNATHI 4TH CROSS,7TH MAIN,J P NAGAR, 3RD PHASE,BANGALORE-560 078 3. SPECTRA LAMPS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.116/2,2ND FLOOR,I STAGE, 6TH PHASE,WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 044 REPRSENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri: DAYANAND HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1&2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2014 PASSED BY XXII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.25701/2009 (ANNEXURE-A) AND PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETR. TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN C.C.NO.25701/2009.
THIS CRL. P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set-aside the order dated 19.6.2014 passed by the XXII ACMM in C.C.No.25701/2009 seeking an opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. In the body of the order, the learned Magistrate has observed that the petitioner herein viz., accused No.1 has availed umpteen number of opportunities to cross-examine PW-1 and on the said observation, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to reject the application.
3. On going through the application filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has not to sought recall of PW-1, instead, he has sought an opportunity to lead his defence evidence. The learned Magistrate has not considered this aspect. Even otherwise, the petitioner/accused No.1 having taken up important defence in the case, an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to substantiate his defence by adducing the evidence.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has taken nearly four years for cross-examination of PW-1 and repeated applications are being filed only in a bid to protract the proceedings. This submission appears to be correct. On going through the records, it is seen that a private complaint has been filed as back as in 2009 and until 2016, the evidence has not yet been completed. Having regard to the said fact, it is necessary to impose stringent conditions on the petitioner in the matter of adducing his evidence.
5. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.6.2014 is set-aside. The application filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to adduce defence evidence is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned magistrate on 7.3.2017 and take further date for the examination of the accused. On that day, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall examine himself and shall keep all his witnesses present on the same day for examination without seeking summons to them. The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter expeditiously.
6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-