Shripad Devaru Hegde vs Sate By on 7 April, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shripad Devaru Hegde vs Sate By on 7 April, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

THE HCNBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHES--:4  'I:IINC.fI'I;3_ER';'«' 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIM-YENATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE '7'!" DAY 019 APRIL, 20.10;  V.

BEFORE

CRIMINAL PETITION Nc§'.'7?.'I7_§i/ 2oE1"Q._.'A'~ . ~. " 

BETWEEN:

1.

SHRIPAD DEVARU_HEG,D"I;Z --  _
AGED ABOUT 47 YETARS,   
I2/0.KoDLAGADDE.;_" '  * 
ANKOLA TALUK,  I
U.K.DISTI2ICT. I

 _ _  _  "  ...I=>ETITIoNER
(BY SR1 I~;:I3«.DAD.AI<_ATTI',-~,_ADa-' 

AND: 

. KUMTA, 

KUMTA POLK-CE.'(CRiE§\/IE)

~u._1<:. DISTRICT. .

E " ~  C,IVRC'u;T*. BENCH, DHARWAD.

REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.

...RESPONDENT

'  (}3'1'~  DILIP KUMAR, HCGPD;

'THIS CRIMINAL PE'1'i'1'l(')N IS II'II.:_«::___> UNDER SECTION

'iﬁ.,432-._nCR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
QpI2AY.'ING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23/01/2010

PASSED BY THE) LEARNED CIVIL ...JE_'%">GE (JR.DN.) AND

  PRL. J.M.F'.C., KUMTA IN Al7>I'LICA'1'i<'..:.\' FILED IN C.C. NO.



53/2009 (ANNEXURE3 'L') BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
pE'r1TioN. ; 

THE CRIMINAL PETITION COMING 
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE comm MAE---E  L-

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is chargesheetedi'v-fo1'S the {offences punishable under Section 408, I.P.C.

When the recording of was over, the respondent made ap:pi'icationv'~ 91 of Cr.P.C. praying folrijé-ltheilproduction of the statements of enquiry report was placed on Trial Court, the witnesses' statementsldonotl aplpearp_lto.__hai.re been produced. The Trial Court joy its orderflldated23/O1/2010 allowed the said summons to the Enquiry Ofﬁcer Ni'tynanandafAnnappa Shet (c.w.7).

2.'jSri S.G. Kadadakatti, the teamed counsel for the submits that the respondent has ﬁled the full ,..»eha;*ge~sheet. The case is of the year 1998. After 12 long years, the respondent cannot maintain Such an application 38% for a direction to produce the witnesses' statements which were enclosures to the Enquiry Ofﬁcer's report:...Vi_i'-.S1*i._ Kadadakatti has the apprehension that the productioln _ witnesses' statements and thereafter their""evxaiminationl4 before the Court would mean further objection raised by him is that .the_witnles_ses'_staten1e4nts are not with C.W.'7 at all. All the enquiry proceedings are in the cust:ody--l_iof ithle<A_'sVsistant Registrar of Co-operative Society.

3. Pericon.ti'a.;i§ri,DiI'ipl"i{1i;na--r,rthe learned I-I.C.G.P. for the Section 91 of Cr.P.C. clothes the Courituwithithe"di'scire.tion:to summon any document, if the same is n'ec¢'ssa;;; for the purpose of any trial. ' .4. impugned order, the petitioner would not be puthtol anyll-'i."p.ret§udice, as he would get the opportunity to ] crosséeigarnine the additional witnesses. l That the full chargesheet is submitted and that the l " 'fiwitnesses are already examined would not constitute any 33% legal impediment for the Court for calling for the production of any document which in the discretion of tlT1'€v.::CQlJ.~!ft is necessary or desirable for the purpose of petitioner"s apprehension that themexercise"ol""p_1"od'ucing-.the~ _ witnesses' statements, etc., Woﬂulclﬁciause ".f1i'1'thCir--..«de1:ay cannot be left unaddresseci -..T_l.'he VT1-'iall iiys'_dHire.eted expedite the trial appreciatinéithe' vipntaige' case (1998). The Prosecution shallialso the Trial Court in the Speedy disposal Ay(.)f,:._'3'1'1e make an endeavour relsthrictvglitselftopitlheieiéarriiination of only those persons, are haying any bearing on the merit:,eU<i9if vmust that the prosecution should"ei<'arnine_.iaill'«iitheyiiiyvitnesses, whose statements are sunyarnonedii be .v"pro-riniced, mechanically and only for the C-1"'vit,"-- [The 'IlrialbCourt shall dispose off the case within 'th_ree s_vufror}:1 the date of production of the certified enquiryiion day--to--day basis.

of. 'order. If need be, it will take up the case for 33%

6. This petition is accordingiy disposed Off without setting aside the impugned order.

hnm/--

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court