Karnataka High Court
S.M. Kulkarni @ Sheshikant Kulkarni vs The State Of Karntaka on 20 January, 2022
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.204529/2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
S.M. Kulkarni @ Sheshikant Kulkarni
S/o Muralidhar Rao Kulkarni
Aged about 51 years, Occ: nil
R/o Bangalore
... Petitioner
(By Sri R.V. Nadagouda, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through Chincholi Police Station-585362
... Respondent
(By Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, HCGP)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the order dated 24.06.2016 by the court
of JMFC Chincholi granting permission to the witness
PW1/complainant to look into the records and depose in
the examination in chief as PW-1, in C.C.No.306/2016 on
the file of the JMFC, Chincholi, the certified copies of which
are at Annexures-C and D, etc.
2
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri R.V. Nadagouda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:
(1) Quash the order dated 24.06.2016 by the court of JMFC Chincholi granting permission to the witness PW1/complainant to look into the records and depose in the examination in chief as PW-1, in C.C.No.306/2016 on the file of the JMFC, Chincholi, the certified copies of which are at Annexures-C and D; and (2) Issue any other writ, order or direction as may be necessary in the interest of justice.
3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
A complaint came to be filed by Sri Anand S/o Yamunappa Doddamani in his capacity as the Branch 3 Manager, State Bank of India, Chincholi, wherein he has received two complaints from two customers namely Shri Narayan Rao Khalaskar and Shri Abdul Gani. Based on the said complaints, the internal audit has taken place and the bank has noticed unauthorized transactions in their savings bank account maintained with Chincholi ADB Branch. Thereafter, further enquiry revealed that user ID and Password of Sri S.M. Kulkarni, Assistant Manager was misused and therefore the bank decided to initiate criminal action against the petitioner herein.
4. On the basis of the complaint, police registered a case and after thorough investigation laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC.
5. The learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the matter was pending before the Trial Magistrate i.e. on the file of JMFC, Chincholi in C.C.No.306/2016. Since accused pleaded not guilty, trial was held. During the course of examination of PW-1 Sri 4 Anand, who lodged the complaint, submits that for further deposing about the incident, he needs to refresh his memory by looking into the records. The same was objected to by the learned counsel for the accused and the objection of the accused was over-ruled by the learned Trial Magistrate by order dated 24.06.2016.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this court.
7. In the petition it is contended that the witness is required to depose before the court from out of his memory and he cannot look into the records and as such the over-ruling of the objections by the accused has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that having regard to the nature of the dispute and voluminous documents produced and relied on by the prosecution, PW-1 could not have memorized the entire records and depose, and therefore for refreshing the 5 memory, PW-1 was required to look into the documents produced by the prosecution. Therefore, the objection was rightly over-ruled by the Trial Magistrate and sought for dismissal of the petition.
9. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the records including the impugned order.
10. Admittedly, offence alleged against the accused is one under Section 420 and 409 of IPC. In a matter of such nature, the prosecution case mainly revolves around the documents rather than the oral evidence. Voluminous documents have been collected by the Investigating Agency and produced before the Court and the copy of the same was also furnished to the accused as a compliance under Section 207 Cr.P.C. When such is the factual aspect, asking PW-1 to memorize the entire details of the documents and depose is highly improbable. So observing, the impugned order came to be passed by the Trial Magistrate over-ruling the objection raised on behalf 6 of the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that grounds urged in the petition do not fit into the category of the cases where this Court can exercise the power vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER The petition is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE swk