- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12412 CRL.P No. 8764 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8764/2023 (482(Cr.PC)/ 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIRAJU .K S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED BOUT 56 YEARS R/O NO.432, ASHA GEETHANILAYA I MAIN , I CROSS SHIVASHANKARAPPA BLOCK HEBBAL, BENGALURU 560 024. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA, ADV.,) AND: BANGALORE BAPTIST HOSPITAL A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL BENGALURU 560 024 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR LT. CL DEEPAK L. BUNYAN (RETD) S/O LATE E.C. BUNYAN. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H. CHETHAN KUMAR, ADV.,) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2023 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12412 CRL.P No. 8764 of 2023 LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION U/S 391 OF CR.P.C. FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CRL.A.NO.652/2019 BY ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 14.03.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER : 25.03.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CAV ORDER Order dated 21.07.2023 passed in Crl.A No.652/2019 by the Court of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru on an application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C., is assailed in this petition. 2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 3. Vide judgment dated 16.02.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.14932/2012, petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. Against his conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12412 CRL.P No. 8764 of 2023 Crl.A No.652/2019. During the pendency of the appeal he filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dismissed the said application assigning reasons. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that at the time of defence evidence, petitioner had met with an accident and he was hospitalized and in a coma stage. He lost his memory and therefore, not able to lead his defence evidence. After regaining his memory he found certain documents relating to the case were not produced. He contended that petitioner is ready to produce the relevant documents and these documents are very much necessary to prove his case. 5. The learned counsel would contend that the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously dismissed the application observing that the documents relied are not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12412 CRL.P No. 8764 of 2023 6. The facts of the case need not be adverted to in detail, since the issue is with regard to dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., at the appellate stage. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner herein was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 16.02.2019 for offences punishable under Section 499 and 500 of IPC. Appeal was filed in the year 2019 challenging the same. During pendency of appeal, on 28.10.2022 an application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., was filed along with certain documents. As per the petitioner at the time of defence evidence before the trial Court he had met with a road accident and hospitalized and therefore, he was not able to lead defence evidence. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has taken note of the fact that the petitioner herein and his counsel were present before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. When the matter was posted for defence evidence, learned counsel submitted that he has no defence evidence. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments and the trial Court adjourned the matter eight times, inspite of it no application was filed to reopen the case for evidence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12412 CRL.P No. 8764 of 2023 8. In so far as the medical reports relied upon before the Sessions Court, the appellant was taking treatment for medical ailment in 2014. The trial Court has recorded the evidence in the year 2018. The learned Sessions Judge has therefore rightly observed that the medical records placed by the petitioner is not sufficient to hold that at the relevant point of time, he was admitted to the hospital for treatment. 9. A perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court shows that after recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he submitted that he has no defence evidence. The subsequent orders of the trial Court do indicate that the accused was very much present, however, no defence evidence was led. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that when the matter was listed for defence evidence he was hospitalized etc., cannot be accepted. 10. Furthermore, the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the documents relied by the petitioner herein and came to the conclusion that they are not required to dispose of the case on merits. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12412 CRL.P No. 8764 of 2023 11. There is no merit in this petition, accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1