Allowed

The State of Karnataka v. Bharath

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2022CRL.P/4412/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Karnataka High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting the prosecution's application to examine witnesses absent due to inordinate delay. The Court permitted the State to examine the witnesses within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. setting aside; permission granted to examine CWs 24 to 26.

The State of Karnataka Vs Bharath — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4412 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI K. RAHUL RAI, HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BHARATH S/O. BASAVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶13

BASAVALINGEGOWDA S/O. CHANNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶14

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. BASAVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶15

ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT LINGEGOWDANADODDI KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.

¶16

¶17

4. RANGANATH

¶18

S/O. LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KALLUR, KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI B.N. GOPALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R43;

¶21

V/O DATED 09.11.2022 PETITION AGAINST R2 IS ABATED)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2019 PASSED IN S.C. NO.32/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANGARA AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO REOPEN THE CASE AND PERMIT THE PROSECUTION TO EXAMINE CW.24 TO CW.26 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND ETC.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, the instant petition is filed by the complainant - State.

¶26

In S.C.No.32/2015, there was an inordinate delay in prosecution examining CWs-24 to 26 as witnesses.

¶27

¶28

The evidence on the side of the prosecution was closed. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. praying to reopen and examine CWs-24 to 26. The said witnesses were absent on that day. As there was an inordinate delay and witnesses were also absent, the trial Court refused the said permission and dismissed the application filed by the State under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and posted the case for examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order reads as under:-

¶29

"Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are present.

¶30

Accused No.2 is absent.

¶31

Adv. for accused filed EP along with medical document and allowed for the day.

¶32

PP filed an application U/sec.311 of Cr.P.C praying to re-open the case and permission to examined CWs 24 to 26.

¶33

Adv. for accused opposes the application.

¶34

CWs 24 to 26 are not present before the court.

¶35

Hence there is no reason to allow the application.

¶36

Further the order sheet dt:21.01.2019 discloses the inaction on the part of the IO in

¶37

¶38

serving the Summons and execute the warrants on these witnesses in spite of repeated issuance of summons and warrants.

¶39

Even at the time of filing of the application

¶40

the witnesses are not present.

¶41

Hence application is rejected.

¶42

Adv. for accused prays for longer time for examination of the accused U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C since A2 is suffering from cancer and he is not in position to speak at present.

¶43

For examination of the accused U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C."

¶44

Call on 22. 04.2019."

¶45

Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed by the State.

¶46

It is submitted on behalf of the State that

¶47

examining of CWs-24 to 26 is very essential to prove the case and not examining the same will cause injustice to the victim in the said case and that no harm would be caused to the accused and that the trial Court erred in not appreciating the contention of the Public Prosecutor. On the

¶48

¶49

said grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and State be permitted to examine CWs-24 to 26.

¶50

Per contra, learned Advocate for the

¶51

respondents justifies the order passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶52

Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the State was prevented for the reasons beyond its control to examine CWs-24 to 26 within a reasonable time and it would serve the interest of justice in permitting the State to examine CWs-24 to 26. However, this should not result in abuse of process of the Court by unduly delaying the case and the accused being put to hardship unnecessarily. It would be appropriate if the State is directed to examine CWs-24 to 26 before the trial Court within a reasonable time and preferably on the next date of hearing itself. Hence, the following:-

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The impugned order dated 26.02.2019 insofar as it relates to rejecting the application

¶55

¶56

of the State filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to examine CWs-24 to 26 is hereby set aside.

¶57

ii. The said application is hereby allowed and petitioner is permitted to examine CWs-24 to 26 before the trial Court on the date fixed by the trial Court.

¶58

Accordingly, the petition is hereby disposed of .

¶59

In view of disposal of the main petition, interlocutory applications, if any do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby disposed of.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

VMB

The State of Karnataka v. Bharath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Bharath

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

Smt v a Barathi Vs Sri Erachari

Sri.H.Yeshwanth Shenoy Vs Smt.Devamani M

Smt Chandana C S Vs Sri Chandan M S

Mr Bhaskara Poojary Vs the State

Manjunath v S Vs State of Karnataka

Narayanayya H Vs the State of Karnataka