- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Karnataka v. Annegowda .
Factual and Procedural Background
During an internal audit conducted on 4 October 1991, the Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. discovered that Rs 5,13,50,629 had been misappropriated between 1 July 1981 and 4 October 1991. Eleven criminal cases (CC No. 8055/1993, CC No. 8165/1994, CC Nos. 8195–98/2000 and CC Nos. 8097–101/2001) were subsequently registered against the main accused, Annegowda, under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471(a) of the Indian Penal Code.
Trial in CC No. 8055/1993 progressed ahead of the other cases and reached the stage of recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC. On 2 August 2002 the accused moved an application under Section 309 CrPC seeking to defer that statement until all ten other cases reached the same stage. The trial court dismissed the application, and the revisional court upheld that dismissal on 22 February 2003.
The accused then invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. A learned Single Judge allowed the petition, set aside the lower-court orders and directed the trial court to take evidence and conduct trial in all eleven cases simultaneously, relying on Section 242 CrPC to defer cross-examination and Section 313 statements. The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a court to defer the examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC until completion of trials in other, similar cases against the same accused.
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing the simultaneous recording of evidence and disposal of eleven distinct criminal cases involving different charge-sheets and time-periods.
Arguments of the Parties
State of Karnataka (Appellant)
- Contended that the CrPC contains no provision permitting postponement of a Section 313 examination merely because other cases are pending.
- Argued that Section 242 CrPC is confined to the prosecution’s evidence in a particular case and does not authorise clubbing or simultaneous trial of separate cases.
Annegowda (Respondent)
- Asserted that forcing him to make a Section 313 statement in one case would prematurely reveal his defence strategy, enabling the prosecution to fill gaps in the other ten cases.
- Relied on the proviso to Section 242 CrPC, contending it allowed deferral of steps necessary for a fair trial, including postponement until all material witnesses in all cases were examined.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court scrutinised Section 242 CrPC within Chapter XIX, noting that:
- Sub-sections (1)–(3) deal solely with the scheduling and recording of prosecution evidence in the case before the Magistrate.
- The proviso permits deferring or recalling cross-examination of a witness, not postponing the accused’s examination under Section 313.
The Court held that the Code offers no mechanism to postpone a Section 313 examination until completion of unrelated or even similar trials. It emphasized that:
- Similarity of offences or overlapping evidence does not merge distinct charge-sheets; each must be evaluated separately.
- The accused had already cross-examined twenty-five witnesses, likely indicating his defence; therefore, the claim of prejudice was unfounded.
- Delaying the Section 313 examination would protract proceedings, contrary to the mandate of expeditious trials.
Consequently, the High Court misconstrued Section 242 and exceeded its authority by ordering simultaneous trials and deferred examinations.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; High Court order set aside and orders of the trial court and revisional court restored.
Direct Effect: The trial court in CC No. 8055/1993 must proceed to record the respondent’s Section 313 statement without waiting for the other ten cases. No consolidation or simultaneous trial of the remaining charge-sheets is required.
Broader Implication: The judgment clarifies that Section 242 CrPC governs prosecution evidence within a single case and cannot be invoked to postpone an accused’s examination under Section 313 or to mandate simultaneous trials. It does not create a new legal doctrine but reinforces strict adherence to the procedural framework of the CrPC.
Ashok Bhan, J.— Leave granted.
2. The State of Karnataka has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka wherein and whereby 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 the Penal Code pertaining to different periods from 1993 to 2001.
3. During the first week of October 1991, Karnataka State Cooperative 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 by the bank officials during the period from 1-7-1981 to 4-10-1991. Against the accused-respondent, Annegowda 11 cases, namely, CC No. 8055 of 1993, CC No. 8165 of 1994, CCs Nos. 8195-98 of 2000 and CCs Nos. 8097-101 of 2001 were registered. In all these cases the accused-respondent is the main accused. Evidence in each of these cases is voluminous and necessarily the trial of each case will be slow.
4. In CC No. 8055 of 1993, which is now at the stage of arguments, accused Annegowda filed an application under Section 309 CrPC on 2-8-2002 requesting the court to defer the recording of his statement under Section 313 CrPC till all the other 10 cases against him reach the stage of the statement of the accused. The trial court dismissed the said application, aggrieved against which the respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 294 of 2002 before the Revisional Court which was dismissed on 22-2-2003. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC in the High Court which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order and a direction has been issued to the trial court to hold trial and record evidence in all the aforesaid cases simultaneously and dispose of the same simultaneously as far as possible. Submission made on behalf of the respondent that he could not be forced to reveal his defence as it would enable the prosecution to cover up the lacunae in other cases which are pending in trial was accepted. This direction has been issued in the purported exercise of power conferred under Section 242 CrPC which according to the learned Single Judge gives the jurisdiction to a court to defer cross-examination of the material witnesses until all the material witnesses are examined by the prosecution as part of fair trial.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
6. Section 242 finds its place in Chapter XIX “Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates” of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads:
“242. Evidence for prosecution.—(1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses.
(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:
Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.”
7. Section 242 CrPC deals with the recording of evidence of prosecution. Sub-section (1) of the section provides that if the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses. The Magistrate is authorised under sub-section (2) to issue summons to any of the witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing and under sub-section (3) on the date fixed, the Magistrate is enjoined upon to take all such evidence as may be produced in its support by the prosecution. The proviso permits the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination. It does not deal with either the clubbing of cases registered against the accused or simultaneous trial of different cases registered against an accused. On an earlier occasion, the respondent had filed an application under Section 312 read with Section 219 CrPC in this case seeking a direction to club CC No. 8165 of 1994 with this case and to hold a common trial. The said application came to be rejected by the Magistrate on 4-7-1994. Against the said order the respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 75 of 1995 before the XXIIIrd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, who heard the matter and dismissed the same by its judgment and order dated 15-7-1995. It was held that there was no reason to club the matter and to hold a common trial. However, a direction was given to expedite the trial of CC No. 8165 of 1994 and if possible dispose of it simultaneously with the present case.
8. There is no dispute that as many as 11 charge-sheets pertaining to different periods have been filed against the respondent. It is only in one case the trial has been completed and has reached the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which enables the court to postpone the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC till the completion 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 CrPC. The apprehension of the accused-respondent that if his statement is recorded under Section 313 CrPC he would 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. It may be taken note of that 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-respondent must have disclosed his defence. The statement on behalf of the accused that he is required to divulge his defence only during his examination under Section 313 CrPC cannot be accepted. The charges in other cases against the accused may be under the same provisions of the Penal Code and may also be similar, but documentary or oral evidence may be different which ultimately has to be appreciated and evaluated by the court separately in each case. It can be taken judicial note of and kept in mind that completion of trial in other ten charge-sheets may take some more time. The High Court has materially erred in coming to the conclusion that under the provisions of Section 242 CrPC recording of statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 could be deferred till the trial in other cases involving similar transactions against the accused is completed.
9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka are set aside and those of the courts below are restored. The trial court may now proceed in accordance with law.
Alert