SIDDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed dated 27.10.2014 by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Judge and Addl. Sessions Court, Gokak in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 91 read with Section 172 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) THIS petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge sheet. The allegations are in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, it was made out to the Fast Track Court, Gokak. The charges were framed and the accused pleaded guilty. The prosecution entered into trial and examined 63 witnesses. The 64th witness is the Investigating Officer who is now retired from service as Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(3.) SRI B. V. Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of evidence of the Investigating Officer who was examined as PW -64 was referring to his diary and the same is noted down while recording his deposition. In that view of the matter, the accused/petitioner insisted that he may be allowed to see the diary for the purpose of contradicting the case on the basis of said case diary. After giving audience to both, learned Fast Track Judge dismissed the application by observing that accused has no right to peruse the case diary. Learned Judge misconceived the ruling of the Apex Court Mukund Lal Vs. Union of India, 1989 AIR(SC) 144 and without application of mind has dismissed the application which order is beyond the scope of Section 172 of Cr.P.C. Now the evidence of the prosecution is concluded and the case is set down for recording 313 statement of the accused persons. If the accused is not permitted to cross -examine PW -64 on the basis of the case diary, which he has maintained, it will prejudice his case resulting in miscarriage of justice.