The main legal point established in the judgment is the careful consideration of the limitations and conditions for summoning documents and recalling witnesses under the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, while also emphasizing the importance of ensuring a fair trial.

ORDER

1. All these petitions are filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the orders dated 18.11.2022, 07.12.2022 and 10.01.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Lokayuktha), Davanagere, in Special (Lokayuktha) Case No.3/2008, for having rejected the applications filed by the petitioner under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C. respectively.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.S Prasad, the learned Special Counsel for respondent-Lokayuktha.

3. Criminal Petition No.2954/2/203 is filed against the order of dismissal dated 18.11.2022 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the alleged three reports submitted by the investigation officer for the purpose of getting permission to prosecute the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the investigation officer, who was examined as P.W.79, has filed charge sheet before the Court, but prior to that he has prepared three reports calculating the disproportionate assets against the petitioner and thereafter, filed the charge sheet by showing the higher value of assets and therefore, those documents are necessary for the petitioner to summon the same and to verify the veracity of the charge sheet. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order.

4. In Criminal Petition No.2906/2023, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal on the application dated 07.12.2022 passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.79 for the purpose of further cross examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that P.W.79, who is an investigation officer, has filed charge sheet. On verification, the investigation officer prepared three reports and obtained permission to file the charge sheet. Therefore, in order to further cross examine P.W.79 and to confront the reports prepared by investigation officer, his presence is necessary for further cross examination. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 07.12.2022. It is also contended that the prosecution filed the similar application which was allowed for recalling P.W.79, but subsequently, the prosecution did not proceed to issue summons the said witness as the accused would get the chance of cross examination, even though the application of the accused recalling P.W.79 has been rejected by the trial Court on an earlier occasion.

5. In Criminal Petition No.2908/2023, the petitioner has challenged the dismissal of the application dated 10.01.2023 passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning himself to be examined as witness and also summoning his wife as witnesses, apart from the other Eighth witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is necessary for the petitioner to examine himself and his wife as witnesses and accordingly, prayed for allowing the petition.

6. Per Contra, learned Special Counsel objected the petitions seeking the relief under section 91 of Cr.P.C. He has contended that the investigation officer has prepared some reports on discussion with the higher officer. The said documents are correspondence within their administration and since they are confidential, they cannot be produced before the Court for the purpose of evidence. It is the opinion formed by the officials during investigation that cannot be a part of the case and therefore, it cannot be allowed to verify the same by the petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

7. In respect of recalling P.W.79, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that after examination of investigation officer as P.W.79, the said officer is now suffering from Parkinson's disease and he has lost his memory. The medical records have been produced to show that he is suffering from the said disease. Therefore, P.W.79 cannot be summoned once again for the purpose of further cross examination. Though the prosecution earlier moved an application for recalling P.W.79, but later not pressed the same in view of