This petition filed by the petitioner-accused under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of the III

Additional Sessions and Special Judge, D.K. Mangaluru in

Spl. Case No.30/2009 dated 30.08.2021 for having

rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under

Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

2.

Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel

for the petitioner and learned Special counsel for the

respondent - Lokayuktha.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

is facing trial before the Special Court for the offence

punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C.

Act'). The prosecution examined various witnesses and

thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded. The

accused also examined as DW.1 and during the arguments,

the accused-petitioner filed an application under Section

311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling PW.14 and to summon the

3

document i.e., Ex.P.69 marked through PW.14 and some

documents were said to be marked by the accused as per

Ex.D.3. But the trial Court without considering the same

has dismissed the application. The document produced by

the accused which is the Annual Property Report (APR) and

he has submitted the statement Nos.1 to 16(a) to the

Government which was sent by the Government to

Lokayuktha for the purpose of investigation and the said

document is withheld, therefore, the same is required to be

summoned by the Court for the purpose of disposal.

Hence, the application filed for summoning the documents

through PW.14 came to be dismissed. Hence, the

petitioner is before this Court.

4.

Having heard the arguments of both the

counsels and on perusal of the records, especially the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to the

notice about the deposition of PW.14 who is the

Investigating

Officer

where

he

has

stated

in

his

examination-in-chief that he received the documents from

4

ADGP, Lokayuktha on 17.01.2007 as per the statement 1

to 16(a) and the same was received through the letter

correspondence which was marked as Ex.P.69 and in the

cross-examination, he has stated that he received the

same from the ADGP but not verified. The accused is also

filed an application before the Government under the RTI

Act where the State Government has given endorsement

stating that the statement 1 to 16(a), APRs of the accused

is not available in the Home Department as it was sent to

the Lokayuktha Police for the purpose of investigation as

per File No. ಒಇ 260 ಪ 2016. But the said documents was

not produced by the Investigating Officer before the Court.

He has got marked only correspondence letter as per

Ex.P.69. Such being the case, with the petitioner is said to

be declared his assets and liabilities in his APR to the

Government every year and the same was summoned by

the Investigating Officer through ADGP from the Home

Department, it was sent to the Investigating Officer and

the same was received by ADGP, then forwarded to the

5

Investigating Officer-PW.14. But those documents were

not produced before the Court except marking the letter

correspondence. Therefore, that document is necessary

document which will clinch issue and the defence taken by

the accused for the Court just to arise at the proper

conclusion in order to dispose the matter. The provisions of

Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is as under:

"311. Power to summon material witness, or

examine person present. Any Court may, at

any stage of any inquiry, trial or other

proceeding under this Code, summon any

person as a witness, or examine any person in

attendance, though not summoned as a

witness, or. recall and re- examine any person

already

examined;

and

the

Court

shall

summon and examine or recall and re-

examine any such person if his evidence

appears to it to be essential to the just

decision of the case."

5.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner

filed an application for summoning the witness by PW.14

by recalling him, but he has failed t