Kumar S Karning Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11771 CRL.P No. 3686 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3686 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KUMAR S KARNING S/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT R/AT NO.80, SRI SAI KRUPA, II CROSS, UDAYANAGAR CHIKKAALASANDRA BANGALORE - 560 061.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBIC PROSECUTOR, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., SPL. PP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2023 IN SPL.C.C.NO.9/2012 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE RURAL, THEREBY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROSECUTION U/S 311 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TO RECALL PW-56 AND PW 57 TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARKING DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN THE MAHAZARS.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:11771 CRL.P No. 3686 of 2025

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, who is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is before this Court seeking relief.

¶22

The petitioner challenges the order dated 30.12.2023 passed in Spl.C.C. No. 9/2012 by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Rural, wherein the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, permitting the prosecution to recall PWs.56 and 57 for further examination-in-chief.

¶23

Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the prosecution witnesses namely, PWs.56 and 57 were examined at length in 2016, and were also examined in 2021 and there is no valid reason to recall them. The application to recall these witnesses was filed in 2023 without providing any valid justification. Accordingly, he contended that the impugned order is not legally sustainable, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swapan Kumar

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:11771 CRL.P No. 3686 of 2025

¶26

Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2019) 14 SCC 328].

¶27

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent (Lokayukta) submitted that although the application does not contain any specific reasons for recalling PWs.56 and 57, the witnesses are sought to be recalled solely for the purpose of marking the articles seized during the investigation. It is further submitted that these articles have been released in favor of the petitioner, subject to their production at trial. Thus, the impugned order is in conformity with the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and does not warrant interference.

¶28

The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered.

¶29

It is admitted that PWs.56 and 57 are the officers who conducted the investigation and seized the articles from the petitioner, which form the subject matter of PF Nos.31 to 34/2008. These articles were later released in favor of the petitioner, subject to their production at trial.

¶30

A perusal of the order sheet dated 06.04.2024 indicates that the counsel for the accused submitted that one of the witnesses, Sri Kambar, was deceased and that there were no objections to marking the documents

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11771 CRL.P No. 3686 of 2025

¶32

collected by Sri Kambar during the investigation through IO (PW56). The counsel further stated that the documents and properties relating to PF Nos. 31 to 34/2008 were released to the accused and may be marked with the accused’s consent.

¶33

The learned counsel for the Lokayukta also submitted that, having given consent for the marking of the articles seized under PF Nos. 31 to 34/2008, the petitioner has no grievance and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner-accused, as these articles were released subject to their production at trial.

¶34

The recall of PWs.56 and 57 is limited solely to the purpose of accepting the articles seized under PF Nos. 31 to 34/2008. It is made clear that these witnesses will be examined only for that purpose and not for any other matters.

¶35

The prosecution shall examine PWs.56 and 57 exclusively for the limited purpose of accepting the articles seized under PF Nos. 31 to 34/2008 on the date they are summoned. In the event that the prosecution fails to examine these witnesses, the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within four months from the next date of hearing.

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:11771 CRL.P No. 3686 of 2025

¶38

In view of the above directions, the petition is hereby disposed of.

¶39

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Kumar S Karning v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar S Karning v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs Syam Prakash

Yogesh Vs State by Basaweshwaranagar Ps

M R Chowdaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Tippeswamy Vs State by

Can Fin Homes Limited Vs Inspector of Police and Station House Officer