Smt Annapurna W/O. Puttappa Aski Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT ANNAPURNA W/O. PUTTAPPA ASKI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, WORKING AT: GOVT. WOMENS P.U. COLLEGE, KOPPAL, R/O. TOTTAD BHAVI KOPPAL, TAL. & DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583231.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REPTED BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, PIN-580011.

¶16

SMT. KOTRAMMA D/O. KADLEPPA ANGADI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: II^nd DIVISION ASSISTANT IN CITY COUNCEL, KOPPAL, SARDAR ROAD, KOPPAL-583231.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 NOT ORDERED)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2025, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL, IN S.C. NO.38/2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURED, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9107 CRL.P No. 102877 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶25

Heard Shri Santosh B.Malagoudar., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata Patil., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

¶26

The petitioner–accused has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023], seeking to set-aside the order dated 21.06.2025 passed in S.C. No.38/2018 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, whereby, the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

¶27

Perused the impugned order.

¶28

The trial Court rejected the application filed by

¶29

the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall PW.9

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9107 CRL.P No. 102877 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

(Investigating Officer) for further cross-examination in the

¶33

matter.

¶34

Perused the deposition of PW.9. On 29.07.2024,

¶35

the chief-examination of PW.9 was recorded and on the same day, he was subjected to cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused and the trial Court observed as under;

¶36

“The witness is not able to understand the questions put by the defence counsel and the also by the Court. Therefore the S.P, Koppal and IGP, Bellary are advised to train this witness as to how to give evidence in court of law. Till then witness is bound over.”

¶37

Accordingly, the Trial Court itself adjourned the matter. The order sheet further reveals that on 03.01.2025, PW-9 was present before the Trial Court, while the counsel for the accused was absent. Consequently, the Trial Court recorded that;

¶38

“Further cross-examination of PW-9 is taken as Nil, and Witness is discharged; Prosecution evidence is treated as closed. Matter is adjourned to 29.01.2025 for

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9107 CRL.P No. 102877 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

recording of statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C."

¶43

Subsequently, the learned counsel for the

¶44

petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking recall of PW-9 for further cross-examination. However, at paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the impugned order, the Trial Court has made observations concerning the role played by counsel for accused, his personal avocation, etc. The Trial Court, however, has not assigned any valid or cogent reasons, while rejection of the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

¶45

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

¶46

contemplates that any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9107 CRL.P No. 102877 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

¶50

In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge himself adjourned the matter for further examination on the premise that ‘PW-9 is not able to under stand the questions put by the defence counsel and also by the Court’. However, at a later stage, the Trial Court recorded the cross-examination of PW-9 as 'nil' without assigning any valid reasons without taking recourse to Section 309 of Cr.P.C.

¶51

It is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has not at all accorded fair opportunity to the defence counsel to complete further cross-examination of PW-9. If PW.9 is not recalled and cross-examined, more injustice would cause to the accused. In view of the above circumstances, it is just and necessary to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed, and the

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9107 CRL.P No. 102877 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶57

ii) The order dated 21.06.2025 passed in S.C. No. 38/2018 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, is set aside.

¶58

iii) The application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., for recalling PW-9 for further cross-examination is hereby allowed. Accordingly, PW-9 is ordered to be recalled for further cross-examination.

¶59

iv) PW-9 shall appear before the Trial Court on 11.08.2025 for the purpose of further crossexamination. On that day, the learned counsel for the accused shall cross-examine

¶60