Karnataka High Court
Ashok vs Karnataka Lokayukta Police, on 3 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101366/2016
BETWEEN:
ASHOK
S/O VENKAPPA HADLI,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: FDA, R/O: NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR M., ADV. FOR
SRI SHANKAR HEGDE)
AND
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
DHARWAD.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, SPL.PP)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 10.02.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, DHARWAD IN KLA.CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3 OF
2014, (ANNEXURE-C) AND ALLOW THE RECALLING
APPLICATION DATED 20.08.2016.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to call for the lower Court records in KLA.CC.3/2014 pending on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge, Dharwad, and to set-aside the impugned order dated 10.02.2017.
The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C before the trial Court, other side opposed the same by filing the objection statement; :3: ultimately, the trial Court rejected the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned Spl.PP. appearing for the respondent- Lokayukta.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that because of the genuine inconvenience, the petitioner was not able to cross-examine P.W.1. Hence, he has submitted that one more opportunity is to be given by imposing cost.
5. Per contra, learned Spl.PP. has submitted that P.W.1 has been cross-examined, but the application is only for further cross-examination. He has also submitted that inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, petitioner has not availed the same. No :4: grounds in this petition, hence, submitted to reject the same.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the order dated 20.08.2016.
7. The trial Court has discussed the matter at length, referring to the order sheet, it is observed at paragraph No.7 of the order that earlier also the advocate for the petitioner/accused filed an application on 06.07.2015 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C praying to recall P.W.1, same was allowed by imposing cost of Rs.1,000/-. It is further observed that P.W.1 was suffering from Paralysis even then he was present before the Court. The petitioner has not at all taken steps to further cross-examine P.W.1. The order further shows that even on 3-4 occasions, the application filed by the :5: petitioner successively were allowed, even then, he has not cross-examined P.W.1.
8. Therefore, looking to the reasons given by the trial Court, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. Hence, no merit in this petition, accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR