- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10881 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: KHAWAJA MOHIYDDIN S/O LATE ABDUL SUBHAN G., AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RANGE FOREST OFFICER (RETIRED) WAS R/AT -RPC LAYOUT 12/1, ATRIA APARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR BMP WARD NO 97, 10TH MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, P AND T COLONY, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE – 32 PRESENTLY R/O HOUSE NO -144, 1ST MAIN, MLA LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE CHICKMAGALORE REPTD. BY THE OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2025 BEING PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE (CORRUPTION) NO. 27/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the accused in Spl.C.No.27/2011 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 14.07.2025, whereby the application filed by the respondent – Lokayukta seeking permission to examine the additional prosecution witnesses was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The aforesaid proceedings was instituted by the respondent-Lokayukta against the petitioner after evidence by both sides, the matter was posted for final arguments at which stage, the respondent filed the instant application seeking permission to examine the sanction authority which was permitted by the Trial Court which is as hereunder: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 “ORDERS ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 311 OF Cr.P.C. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has filed this application under section 311 of Cr.P.C., praying to permit the complainant to summon and examine the sanctioning authority viz. Indu B. Srivastava, Prl. Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Force, Aranya Bhavana, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, who accorded sanction under section 19 of the PC Act 1988 and permit inclusion of his name as an additional prosecution witness though not named in the charge sheet witness list. 2. In the application, complainant contended that the present case was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(e) r/w section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and it is now posted for final arguments, prosecution had already examined the witnesses listed in the charge sheet, due to inadvertence and oversight, the name of the sanctioning authority-who had granted sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting the accused was omitted from the witness list and as such said witness was not examined. The complainant emphasized that evidence of the sanctioning authority was both essential and mandatory, as the prosecution was required to establish that valid sanction had been granted for the prosecution. Such sanction, it was contended, was a sine qua non for a lawful trial under the provisions of the Prevention of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 Corruption Act. For fair adjudication of the case, it is just and necessary to permit the prosecution to examine the sanctioning authority, and treat the said witness as an additional witness, the application was made with bona fide and in good faith, and that no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the witness were to be examined at this stage, Hence, prayed to allow the application. 3. Learned counsel for accused files objection to the application stating that prosecution had moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. at a stage when the matter was already posted for final arguments and the application is not maintainable. In this case, Lokayukta police filed the FIR on 5.8.2008 and registered as Crime No.3/2008. Charge sheet filed on 16.03.2011. The prosecution had already examined PW-1 to PW-33 and closed its case, after which the accused had also examined DW-1 to DW-7, and his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Since February 2020, the case was continuously adjourned for final arguments, and only after a gap of more than five years, the prosecution moved the present application which was an attempt to cure a lacuna in the case. The reasons cited in prosecution's application such as inadvertence or omission of the witness from the charge sheet could not be considered as valid grounds for recall. 4. Prosecution had previously filed a similar application under section 311 on 30-08-2018, citing oversight in giving up a witness, which was allowed. Therefore, the accused argued that the prosecution was in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 the habit of filing such applications on the pretext of inadvertence and should now be estopped from seeking further indulgence. On these grounds accused prayed to reject the application with costs. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Learned P.P filed memo with copies of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) Crl. Appeal No. 259- 260/2019 between Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh and (2) Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another reported in 2013 AIR SCW 4179. 7. Learned counsel for accused has relied upon the following decisions: 1) Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Umar Mohammed v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 14 SCC 711 2) Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI (2019) 14 SCC 328 3) Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Iqbal Singh 8. The point that arise for my consideration is: "Whether the prosecution has made out grounds to consider the application filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. permitting the prosecution to produce additional witness at this belated stage ?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 9. My finding on the above point is in the affirmative, for the following: REASONS 10. Lokayukta police, Chikmagaluru filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act on 16.3.2011 in the crime registered in Crime No. 3/2008 dt: 5.8.2008. 11. After appearance of the accused, charge is framed on 25.4.2015, thereafter posted the matter for trial. Trial commenced from 04.01.2016 and in all 33 witnesses examined as PW.1 to PW.33. Thereafter, after the completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined as contemplated under section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused also produced oral evidence by examining witnesses as DW.1 to DW.7. Thereafter, evidence concluded and the matter was posted for arguments on merits on 24.06.2019. 12. Thereafter, as per the application filed by the accused to recall the witnesses, it was allowed and again the accused examined some witnesses and finally it was posted for arguments on merits vide dt: 24.2.2020. Since the year 2020, this case has been adjourning for hearing the arguments on merits. 13. Now, when this case is set down for arguments as a last chance, learned Spl. P.P has come up with the present application under section 311 Cr.P.C - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 seeking an order permitting the prosecution to examine additional witness. 14. Along with the application, learned P.P filed the list of additional witness to be examined by name Prl. Chief Conservator of Forest, Head of the Forest Force who has issued sanction order to prosecute the accused. 15. In the application, learned Spl. P.P has submitted due to in-advertance and over sight, name of the sanctioning authority who accorded sanction under section 19 of P.C. Act for prosecuting the accused was not included in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet and as a result the said witness has not been examined. 16. It is further stated that if the sanctioning authority is not examined, then prejudice would be caused to the Prosecution as the prosecution has to prove the sanction to prosecute the accused. Further it is contended that sanction order is already produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet and if the application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the accused except delay in disposal of the case. 17. As a counter to this argument, learned counsel for the accused argued that the crime relates to 2008, charge sheet filed in the year 2011, thereby almost 17 years elapsed. Further it is argued that earlier the prosecution has filed similar application under section 311 Cr.P.C to recall the prosecution witness which was allowed and at that time, the prosecution could have summoned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 this witness but without doing so, again similar application filed at the fag end of this case. 18. Learned counsel further argued that in the judgments relied upon by him as noted supra, in all the judgments it is observed that: "the application under section 311 Cr.P.C to be considered exercising powers judiciously and not arbitrarily keeping in mind the interest of justice and ensuring that the trial is not rendered defective due to non examination of a material witness and further where the evidence sought to be led is essential to arrive at a just decision, the court may exercise discretion in favour of allowing such evidence.". 19. On perusal of the observation made in the aforesaid judgments, relied by learned counsel for the accused, it is stated that if the evidence sought to be led is essential to arrive at a just decision, then the court may exercise discretion in favour of allowing such evidence. 20. Here in this case, it is the contention of the prosecution that sanction order was obtained to prosecute the accused, which is mandatorily required as provided under section 19 of P.C. Act, if there is no sanction order, then the proceedings will be vitiated and therefore, it is necessary to examine the witness who accorded sanction. 21. On going through the records, there is already sanction order. But the prosecution while - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 producing its evidence not got marked the sanction order by examining the competent witness. 22. It is the argument of learned Spl. P.P that in the charge sheet in-advertantly or oversight name of the person who accorded sanction not mentioned as charge sheet witness, therefore the prosecution could not examine the said witness. Now, at this stage while preparing for addressing arguments, it has come to the notice of the learned Spl.P.P and therefore the present application filed. 23. As the provision of law i.e. section of 19 of P.C. Act, 1988 requires sanction to prosecute the accused and that sanction order is not got marked as an exhibit by examining competent person who accorded sanction, if not permitted to examine, then injury would be caused to the prosecution. If the application is allowed, no injury would be caused to the accused except delay in prosecuting the case. Delay may be compensated by awarding cost to the accused. For the aforesaid reasons, the application deserves to be allowed and accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by learned Spl. P.P is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000=00 to be paid to accused. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28792 CRL.P No. 10881 of 2025 The prosecution is permitted to include Indu B. Srivastava, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, as an additional prosecution witness and examine the said witness.” 4. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be perverse or capricious warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner would be entitled to cross examine the additional witnesses to be examined by the respondent, it cannot be said that prejudice would be caused by the petitioner. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 4 Sl No.: 8