- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8893 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102765 OF 2025 (482 Cr.PC/528 BNSS) BETWEEN: MR. T. PRADEEP S/O. K. M. THANKAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. KOCHUPURACHAL HOUSE, KANNICKAL PO, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI KRISHNA S. VYAS AND SHRI G. N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8893 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2025 2. DR. K. ELANGO, CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, AT: ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, (OPP. HDMC), LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADV. FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPL.(CBI) C.C. NO.2/2016, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, DHARWAD, AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 IN SPL.(CBI) C.C. NO.2/2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, DHARWAD, VIDE ANNEXURE-K, WHEREBY THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 311 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR RECALL AND RE-EXAMINATION OF PW-15 HAS BEEN ALLOWED, CONTRARY TO LAW AND SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8893 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Shri Krishna S.Vyas., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neelendra D.Gunde., learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner-accused has filed this petition praying to quash the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Dharwad in Spl.CBI. C.C.No.2/2016, wherein, the trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by the prosecution and recalled PW.15 for re-examination. 3. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 reads as under: “ORDER The application filed U/sec.311 of Cr.P.C., by the learned PP is hereby allowed. Consequently, PW-15 is recalled for re- examination. Issue summons to PW.15. For evidence by 18.07.2025.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8893 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2025 4. Perused the impugned order. 5. The trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., and consequently, recalled PW.15 for re-examination in order to mark the certificate filed under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that now the evidence is concluded; the trial Court recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and now matter is set-down for final argument. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that during cross-examination, PW.15 categorically admitted that he had not issued a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in the present case, and the prosecution to resolve this lapse, has now filed an application seeking recall of the said witness, which, according to the petitioner, is not permissible under law. 7. At this juncture, based on the application filed by the prosecution, the trial Court allowed the application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8893 CRL.P No. 102765 of 2025 filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the petitioner contends that such permission is not legally tenable. Admittedly, the prosecution did not mark the certificate filed under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act through charge-sheet witness, more particularly PW.15. 8. Admittedly, the process of marking of document is a ministerial act and whereas, an appreciation of document is a judicial act. Mere marking of a relevant document does not dispensed with. If PW.15 is recalled for the limited purpose of marking the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, no prejudice would be caused to the accused. On the other hand, the prosecution may suffer irreparable loss, if not permitted. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/- CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37