Karnataka High Court
Shri siddappa B. H. v. State of Karnataka & Devika
Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2954 OF 2023
Decided On 18-05-2023
Facts of the case-
In this case, the accused, Siddappa B H, has challenged the order of the special court which rejected his application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The application sought to summon three alleged reports submitted by the investigation officer for the purpose of obtaining permission to prosecute the case.
The accused also desired to cross-examine the investigating officer and contested the dismissal of his application to summon himself as a witness, as well as his wife and eight other witnesses.
The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the investigation officer had prepared certain reports in consultation with higher-ranking officers. These documents are regarded as confidential correspondence within their administrative framework, and therefore, they cannot be produced in court as evidence. The prosecution argued that the opinions formed by officials during the investigation process are not admissible as part of the case and should not be subject to verification by the petitioner.
Regarding the request to summon the investigating officer for further cross-examination, it was submitted that the officer has since retired and is currently afflicted with Parkinson’s disease, resulting in memory loss.
Relevant Provisions
| Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) | Related to |
| Sec. 91 | Summons to produce document or other thing. |
Judgement
The bench acknowledged that the police had conducted an investigation, filed a chargesheet in 2008, and that the trial had been pending for nearly 15 years. The investigation officer had been thoroughly examined by the prosecution and cross-examined by the accused.
Regarding the plea for summoning reports, the court stated that any investigation papers present in the case diary cannot be summoned for the purpose of contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It emphasized that Section 172(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) bars the summoning of such documents.
The court further explained that the reports allegedly prepared by the investigating officer in consultation with higher-ranking officers before filing the chargesheet cannot be summoned because they form part of the investigation and not the final report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. As a result, the documents could not be summoned under Section 91 of the CrPC, and the investigating officer could not be summoned for further cross-examination.
However, the court allowed the plea for the accused to summon himself as a witness and also permitted the examination of his wife as a witness. It emphasized that the accused is in a better position to explain or rebut the prosecution’s evidence, and failing to testify could result in adverse inferences. Considering that the case involved allegations of disproportionate assets, which included the wife’s property as well, the court deemed it necessary for the accused and his wife to testify.
Finally, the court directed the trial court to prioritize the case and dispose of it expeditiously in accordance with the law.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
