Shri Siddappa B H vs The State
18 May, 2023
Bench: Hon’ble K.Natarajan
Facts:-
In the case before the Karnataka High Court, Shri Siddappa B H has filed three criminal petitions, numbered as Criminal Petition No.2954/2023, Criminal Petition No.2906/2023, and Criminal Petition No.2908/2023. The petitions were heard by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Natarajan.
In Criminal Petition No.2954/2023, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Lokayuktha), Davanagere, in Special (Lokayuktha) Case No.3/2008. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)[1] to summon certain reports prepared by the investigation officer. The petitioner argues that these documents are necessary to verify the veracity of the charge sheet. The petitioner’s request to quash the order is based on the dismissal of the application.
In Criminal Petition No.2906/2023, the petitioner challenges the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Lokayuktha), Davanagere, in Special (Lokayuktha) Case No.3/2008. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C[2]. to recall a witness, P.W.79 (presumably the investigation officer), for further cross-examination. The petitioner argues that P.W.79 had prepared three reports before filing the charge sheet, and the petitioner seeks to confront those reports during the cross-examination. The petitioner’s request to quash the order is based on the dismissal of the application.
Arguments
In Criminal Petition No.2908/2023, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Lokayuktha), Davanagere, in Special (Lokayuktha) Case No.3/2008. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon himself and his wife as witnesses, along with other witnesses. The petitioner argues that it is necessary for them to testify. The petitioner’s request to quash the order is based on the dismissal of the application.
The court heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and the Special Counsel representing the Lokayuktha (respondent). The petitioner’s counsel contended that the reports prepared by the investigation officer and the recall of the witness are essential for the defense. The Special Counsel opposed the petitions, stating that the documents were confidential and could not be produced in court. The Special Counsel also mentioned that the witness suffered from Parkinson’s disease and recalling him for further cross-examination may not be feasible.
Judgement
After considering the arguments and examining the records, the court observed that the reports prepared by the investigation officer, which were part of the investigation and not the charge sheet, cannot be summoned. The court also took note of the health condition of the witness suffering from Parkinson’s disease. The court concluded that the applications filed by the petitioner for summoning the documents and recalling the witness were rightly dismissed by the trial court and found no reason for interference.
Therefore, the court dismissed all three criminal petitions filed by Shri Siddappa B H.
“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.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR
[1] the powers of a court to issue summons or warrant for the production of a document or electronic record.
[2] Power to summon material witness, or examine person present
