Dismissed

Shri.Kottapally Timmappa Alias Timmaraj v. Hescom Vigilance Police Station

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022CRL.P/100307/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Criminal Bench disposed of a petition challenging an order allowing the prosecution to recall a witness for partial re-examination and marking of documents. The Court found no prejudice caused to the accused and dismissed the petition, reserving liberty to cross-examine the witness.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed; liberty reserved for the accused to cross-examine the witness after further examination.

Shri.Kottapally Timmappa Alias Timmaraj Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100307 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100307 OF 2020 (482)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. KOTTAPALLY TIMMAPPA @ TIMMARAJ S/O. K.HANAMANTAPPA,

¶10

AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KARLE THOTA,WARD NO.6, BELLARY,

¶11

TQ/DIST BELLARY.

¶12

SHRI. V.DEVRAJ S/O. VANKIDUSWAMY @ VENKITASWAMY NAIDU,

¶13

AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.2/15A-A, GANDHI NAGAR, PALLAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT, ONDIPUDAR POST, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU. …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. ANAND.L.SANDRIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by ROHANHADIMANI T ROHAN Location: HIGH HADIMANIT COURT OFKARNATAKADHARWAD Date: 2023.02.25 10:36:01 +0530

¶17

HESCOM VIGILANCE POLICE STATION BELAGAVI, THROUGH HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-B DATED 11.09.2017 PASSED IN SPL.CASE NO.78/2010 BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 135(1) (B) (C) (D) OF ELECTRICITY ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 100307 of 2020

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In the proceedings initiated for the theft of electricity, which is punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(c)(d) of the Electricity Act (for short, “Act”), the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) to recall PW.1 and examine him for the purpose of marking the documents which were produced but were not marked due to inadvertence. The learned Magistrate allowed the application against which the present petition is filed.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 and the same is in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that the said application could have been considered only after the cross-examination of PW.1 by the

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 100307 of 2020

¶27

petitioners/accused and at this stage, the prosecution is not entitled for marking the said documents.

¶28

Sri. V.S.Kalasurmath, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent submits that though sufficient opportunity was not provided to the accused, however no prejudice is caused to the accused, since the learned Magistrate has only permitted the prosecution to mark the documents which were produced but not marked due to inadvertence.

¶29

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

The prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., for the purpose of marking the documents which were already produced, but were not marked since the services of the Public Prosecutor was not available at the time of examination in chief of PW.1.

¶31

The learned Magistrate taking into account the same, has passed the impugned order permitting the prosecution to

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 100307 of 2020

¶34

further examine the PW.1 for the purpose of marking the

¶35

documents which were already produced and also to depose relevant facts which were not deposed, since the services of the Public Prosecution was not available at the time of examination in chief of PW.1. In the absence of any prejudice caused to the accused, the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The criminal petition stands dismissed.

¶38

ii. Liberty is reserved with the

¶39

petitioner/accused No.2 and 3 to crossexamine PW.1 after further examination in chief of PW.1.

¶40

iii. All contentions are kept open.

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

Shri.Kottapally Timmappa Alias Timmaraj v. Hescom Vigilance Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Kottapally Timmappa Alias Timmaraj v. Hescom Vigilance Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annavva W/O Mahalingappa Chennal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Shafiulla Mubarak Golandaj Vs Shri.Yamanappa Jetteppa Chaluvadi

A Sampath Kumar S/O a Veeranna Vs Smt. Ramya W/O a Sampath Kumar

Channavva W/O. Chandragouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Villiam Robart Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahalakshmi D/O Mallayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka