Disposed

Sri.B.S Lokesh v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023WP/1346/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court permitted cross-examination of a prosecution witness in proceedings under the Public Premises Act. The Court followed a pre-decedent order issued by a co-ordinate bench in identical circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The Court permitted the petitioner to cross-examine Prosecution Witness-1 on 03.11.2022 and directed the Presiding Officer to allow this without insisting on the certified copy of the order.

Sri.B.S Lokesh Vs the Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1346 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1346 OF 2023 (GM-PP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.S. LOKESH, S/O LATE SRI. A SHANKARAPPA AND CHANDRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 65, 6TH CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT HALASURU, BENGALURU -560 008.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA, BY ASC CENTRE AND COLLEGE, AGARAMA POST, BENGALURU -560 007, REP. BY ITS COMMANDANT.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY DR. V.C. JAGANNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE STAGE OF EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN CASE NO.7224/E/ASC/SVYN059)Q3-14 DATED 05/11/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-X AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 1346 of 2023

¶19

THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶22

prayer:

¶23

i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, quashing the proceedings after the stage of examination of witnesses, and quash the order passed in CASE NO.7224/E/ASC (SVY NO.59)Q314 dated 05.11.2022 vide Annexure-X and

¶24

ii. For any other relief/s as this Hon'ble court may deem fit, in the interests of Justice.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison

¶26

would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.13930/2021

¶27

dated 06.08.2021, which is followed by this Court in W.P.No.20943/2022 disposed on 02.11.2022, wherein this Court has held as follows:

¶28

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in

¶29

question an order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act, 1979 denying cross-examination to the petitioner herein.

¶30

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in an identical circumstances in W.P.No.13930/2021 dated 06.08.2021, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:

¶31

¶32

WP No. 1346 of 2023

¶33

"Petitioner's grievance is, he was not granted enough opportunity to examine P.W.1 by respondent.

¶34

2. Shri. S. Rajashekar, learned CGC for respondent submitted that the matter is of the year 2015 and petitioner has been repeatedly seeking adjournments before the Court below. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

¶35

3. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Examination-inChief of P.W.1 has been completed on 12.03.2019. The next date of hearing is on 10.08.2021. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1, by putting him on terms, because his right of occupation in the premises would be affected without cross-examination of P.W.1.

¶36

4. Hence, the following: ORDER

¶37

(a) Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1 on any one day, either on 10.08.2021 or on such date permitted by the Presiding Officer, on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/(Rupees Three Thousand) to “Karnataka Advocates’ Clerks Benevolent Trust”, A/c No.237010003206, Kotak Mahindra Bank, High Court Branch, within one week.

¶38

(b) The Presiding Officer shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

¶39

(c) Petitioner shall be permitted to crossexamine without insisting for the certified copy of this order. Shri. Rajashekar, learned CGC is requested to convey the order to the Presiding Officer.

¶40

Petition is accordingly disposed of ."

¶41

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/caveator would not dispute the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶42

5. In the light of the identical issue, under the very enactment being considered by this Court, qua the permission of cross-examination of the Prosecution Witness-1, I deem it appropriate to follow the same and pass the very order as is rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court (supra).

¶43

¶44

WP No. 1346 of 2023

¶45

6. The Presiding Officer shall permit the petitioner to cross-examine Prosecution Witness-1 on the ensuing date of the proceeding before him.

¶46

7. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.2/caveator would submit that the ensuing date is 03.11.2022.

¶47

8. Therefore, the Presiding Officer shall permit cross-examination of Prosecution Witness-1 on 03.11.2022. The cross-examination shall be concluded by the petitioner on the very day i.e., 03.11.2022."

¶48

All the contentions of both the parties shall remain open

¶49

except to the extent observed hereinabove.

¶50

With the aforesaid observations, all these petitions stand

¶51

disposed.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri.B.S Lokesh v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.B.S Lokesh v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayananda Vs State Bank of India

Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Raju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Dream Land Promoters and Developers Vs the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Mr. S. Nagesha Babu Vs M/S. Bank of Baroda

Sri. B S Nagaraj Vs the State Ofkarnataka