IMPORTANT POINT
The court cannot impose procedural requirements not specified in existing laws, emphasizing the separation of judicial and legislative functions.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, C.J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mohammed Tahir for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. P. Prasanna Kumar for the respondent.

1.1 As learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 20th December 2023 dismissed the petition, the appellant-original petitioner has preferred this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1964.

2. What was prayed in the writ petition was to direct the trial Court-49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases at Bengaluru ‘to sign or put initials to each page of case diary of RC-36/2022/NIA/DLI registered by the respondent under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, from page No. 1 till the last page and continue this practice till filing of charge sheet’. It is next prayed to require the said court to observe the same practice in all the cases pending before it.

3. Noticing the facts from the pleadings of the petition, it appears that the petitioner was found to be involved in a murder incident which took place on 26th July 2022 at Sullia town, pursuant to which, Crime No. 63 of 2022 was registered with the Police Station concerned and subsequently the case was transferred to the National Investigating Agency (NIA) invoking Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the case was registered as No. RC-36/2022/NIA/DLI. Petitioner is accused No. 8 is the said criminal proceedings.

3.1 It appears that the court passed orders of remand and in connection with the orders, the case diary was summoned which was taken back by the Investigating Officer. The appellant-accused had submitted a memo with the trial court to summon the case diary and further requested to put initial to authenticate the entries on each page of the diary, which application came to be rejected on 16th November 2022 by the Court, on the ground that there was no provision.

3.2 It was contended inter alia that in the investigation, the case diary is important piece of document which shows the progress of the investigation and the conduct of the Investigating Officer. The appellant-petitioner relied on Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of his case. It was the case that initial was necessary to be made on each page of the court diary when it is produced before the Court. It was contended that this practice of putting initials on each page was not mentioned in the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, but in the Rules of other States, it was so provided. It was therefore, submitted that for preventing the tampering and fabrication, initial of the investigating officer on each page was desired and that this Court should make it mandatory.

4. Assailing the judgment and order of learned Single Judge rejecting the prayers, it was submitted that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that maintenance of true entries in the case diary was part of fairness and transparency. It was contended that Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1907 (Cr.P.C.) mandate the production of case diary along with remand application and the satisfaction could be arrived at by the Magistrate on the basis of the entries made in the case diary as per Section 172 of Cr.P.C. It was submitted that, signing diary on each page was an implied mandate though there was no provision in that regard in the Rules framed by the State. The Rules of other States were pressed into service to further submit that signature of the investigating officer on each page of the case diary would make it tamper-proof.

4.1 On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge by submitting that the petitioner wants an order from this Court in the nature of legislative exercise, when there is no such provision available in the statute for the Rules to support the prayer made in the petition.

5.