LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus ANNEGOWDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ST A TE OF KARNATAKA v. ANNEGOWDA JULY 13,2006. [ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 242-Postponing of the recording of statement of acrnsed under section 313 till completion of trial A B in other cases involving similar transaction against accused-Held: Under C section 242 cross examination of accused under Section 313 cannot be deferred till completion of trial in other cases-It cannot be said that if his statement is recorded he would be required to divulge his defence. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal was whether under the provisions of section 242 Cr.P.C. recording of statement of accused- D respondent under section 313 could be deferred till the trial in other cases involving similar transactions against the accused is completed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: l.l. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure E which enables the Court to postpone the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. till the complttion.of the trial in other cases. Merely because certain other charge sheets have been filed against the same accused for similar offences cannot be a ground to postpone the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.1504-E-Fl 1.2. In the instant case, as many as 11 charge sheets pertaining to different periods have been filed against the respondent-accused. It is only in one case the trial has been completed and has reached the stage of examination F of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. The apprehension of the respondent- accused that if his statement is recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. he would G be required to divulge his defence and in that event he would be prejudiced in the trial of other cases filed against him is without any basis and foundation. As many as 25 witnesses have already been examined and the witnesses have already been cross-examined by the advocate for the accused. It is reasonable to infer that during the course of his cross-examination the accused- ~! H 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A respondent must have disclosed his defence. It cannot be said that the accused is required to divulge his defence only during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The charges in other cases against the accused may be under the same provisions of Indian Penal Code and may also be similar but documentary or oral evidence may be different which ultimately has to be B appreciated and evaluated by the Court separately in each case. 1504-E; 504-F-H; 505-AI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2006. C From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore dated 11.2.2003 in Criminal Petition No. 505/2003. Sanjay R. Hegde for the Appellant. E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAN, J. Leave granted. State of Karnataka has filed the present appeal against the order of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka wherein and whereby E the High Court while setting aside the judgment and order of the courts below has directed the Trial Court to record evidence in the eleven cases registered against the accused-respondent under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471(a) of Indian Penal Code pertaining to different periods from 1993 to 200 I. During the first week of October, 1991, Karntaka State Co-operative F Apex Bank Limited (for short "the complainant") drew a programme of inspection of branches of the Bank and directed the then Internal Auditor to inspect the accounts of the branches. The Internal Auditor took up inspection of West of Chord Road II stage Branch on 4.10.1991 and submitted three reports which revealed that a total sum of Rs. 5, 13,50,629/- was misappropriated G by the Bank officials during the period from 1.7.1981to4.10.1991. Against accused-respondent Annegowda 11 cases. namely, CC No. 8055/93, CC No. 8165/94, CC No. 8195/2000, CC No. 819612000, CC No. 8197/2000, CC No. 8198/ 2000, CC No. 8097/2001, CC No. 8098/200 I, CC No. 8099/200 I, CC No. 8100/ 2001 and CC 8101/001 were registered. In all these cases accused-respondent is the main accused. Evidence in each of these cases is voluminous and H ST A TE OF KARNAT AKA v. ANNEGOWDA [BHAN, J.] 503 n~cessarily, the trial of each case will be slow. In CC No. 8055 of 1993, which is now at the stage of arguments, accused Annegowda filed an applicatio[I under Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.