T. NASEER @ NASEER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader who is directed to take notice.

(2.) The petitioner is one of the accused facing serious charges for offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, Explosive Substances Act , 1908 and The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

(3.) It transpires that the prosecution has fielded one Yogananda as PW-194 and it transpires that according to the petitioner, the said Yogananda is a stock police witness and has been labeled as a rowdy sheeter and also a communal goonda in respect of which there are records maintained before the Somawarpet Police Station. In order to impeach the credibility of the said witness, an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.', for brevity) was made calling upon the court to summon the relevant documents to demonstrate that the witness Yogananda was a rowdy sheeter and a communal goonda. The court below has however rejected the application, firstly on the ground that Section 91 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision and would at best enable the court if it so desires, to summon any document and the petitioner should not as a matter of right seek summoning of any such document. Secondly, it is asserted by the court below that the application indicated that the documents were necessary to confront not only Yogananda, but also one M.A. Prabhakar. The court below had felt that since the evidence of M.A. Prabhakar was already completed and he was also partially cross-examined, no useful purpose would be served in calling for such documents and confronting the same. Further, the said application also did not indicate that Yogananda was a communal goonda. Therefore, no such sheet was opened against the witness. And that any such material would not in any manner, concern the accused, as the alleged history sheet of Yogananda would have no bearing in so far as the defence of the petitioner is concerned. The further allegation that Yogananda was involved in several criminal cases was also not relevant, as those criminal cases had nothing to do with the case as against the petitioner. It is on these grounds that the court below has rejected the application of the accused.