- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 3407 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3407 OF 2026 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP.) AND: NARASIMHARAJU @ BOMBAY RAJANN @ RAJANNA, S/O PATEL NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, C/O RAMANLINGAI HOUSE, BEHIND PLD BANK, SUDHA CLINIC AIJURU, RAMANAGARA TOWN. P/A ANNEKEMPAIYA DOODI VILLAGE, MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TQ, RAMANAGARA DIST-562120. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 IN SC NO.72/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT RAMANAGARA IN SC NO.72/2016 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 3407 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-State is before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court which rejects the application of the prosecution filed under Section 231(1) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1. A crime in Crime No.72/2016 comes to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201, 326, 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. During the trial, the prosecution files an application under Section 231(1) of the Cr.P.C., seeking adducing of additional evidence. The respondent files objections. The concerned Court in terms of the order dated 16.09.2025, rejects the application. The order of the concerned Court reads as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 3407 of 2026 "ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 231(1) of Cr.P.C. Application is filed by the learned Public Prosecutor for production of evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. 2. It is contended that, the bus ticket from Bangalore to Dharmastala and from Dharmastala to Bangalore and from Bangalore to Ramanagara dated 21.02.2016 and 22.02.2016 of KSRTC bus is already produced along with the Prosecution Papers and it is also included in the PF No.30 of 2016. The bus ticket for Rs.233/- which is recovered from the accused was kept in the Treasury Box and thereafter, it is marked in the course of evidence as a material object, but now printed letters in the said ticket had been erased off. In the process of investigation, the I.O., had kept the photocopy of those tickets from which printed letters are clearly visible. Now, as the printed letters had been erased from M.O.15, the prosecution had opted to produce photocopy of those tickets in support of the prosecution case. Hence, prayed for allowing the application. 3. The said application is opposed on behalf of the accused, wherein it is stated that the bus ticket had already been marked as M.O.15 and the original bus ticket which was seized under the mahazar is produced before the court and it is the blank bus tickets, printed matters are not visible. The court had made observation about the status of the bus ticket in the evidence of PW15. The photocopy of the bus tickets are not accompanied in the charge sheet. Now, after the cross examination of the IO, the prosecution had filed this application to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. Investigating officer after the chief examination had appeared before the court on many hearing dates and on such occasions prosecution did not press for this application which clearly shows it is nothing but an afterthought and IO had fabricated the photocopy of the bus ticket to fill up the loophole in the prosecution case. So, if this photocopy of the bus ticket are taken in the evidence, it would lead to collection of fresh evidence during the trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 3407 of 2026 4. Hear both counsels and perused the evidence of PW-28 who is the Investigating Officer. PW-28 was examined in chief on 31.01.2023 and on the said day PW-28 was bond over for further-chief-examination for the reason the seized bus ticket, money and the two wheeler vehicle used for the commission of the offence was to be marked. Thereafter, PW-28 was further examined in-chief on 21.09.2023, whereby the 3 bus tickets, 1 Senior Citizen Identity Card and amount of Rs.233/- are together marked as M.O.15. On perusal of evidence of PW-16, it makes out M.O.15 got marked through PW-16 on 08.08.2019. In the evidence of PW-16 it is clearly noted, now the printed letters are not seen in the said bus tickets, but he had stated that at the time of seizing the bus tickets, he had seen that one of the bus ticket is from Ramanagara to Dharmaskala dated: 22.02.2016 and thereafter, from Dharmaskala to Bengaluru dated: 21.02.2016 and another bus ticket from Bengaluru to Ramanagara dated:22.02.2016, he had specifically stated in his evidence, but also stated that now the printed letters are not seen. His evidence is adduced on 08.08.2019 and PW-28 was examined in- chief on 31.01.2023, but in the gap of 4 years the prosecution had not made any efforts to produce the photo print of the said ticket through the I.O., before he commencing his evidence. In the cross- examination particular questions are posed with regard to the very same tickets which are marked in M.O.15. Only after bringing out these facts in the cross examination adduced on behalf of the accused by disputing those bus tickets, now later after completion of the cross examination of PW 28, the prosecution had filed this application. So this clearly makes out that, now to improve the prosecution case, the I.O. had opted to produce the photo print of the tickets. If at all the prosecution had found it necessary to produce, it would have opted to produce before commencement of the cross-examination. Now, when the accused had taken a valid defence and adduced his cross-examination, at this stage to explain those facts which are brought out in the cross examination prosecution cannot be allowed to produce the document as sought. In the circumstance, I proceed to pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 3407 of 2026 ORDER The application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor U/Sec.231 (1) of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed." 4. Learned Addl. SPP Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha would submit that the tickets that are produced by PW.16 are printed from a device known as electronic ticketing machine and those tickets are printed using a technology. The content in the tickets will not last for a long time. Therefore, the contents of those tickets had become illegible. Owing to the fact that the content of the ticket may not last long, the investigating officer had taken a photocopy of the said documents. It is those photocopies that the prosecution wanted to produce. The rejection of the application thus, is an error in law. 5. The submission of the learned Addl. SPP would merit acceptance, as what is being produced is not a fresh evidence but the evidence through the photocopy. The application preferred by the prosecution was in tune with law and the reasons rendered therein was also in tune with law as to why the application had to be preferred. In that light, the order of the concerned Court runs counter to the spirit of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 3407 of 2026 sub-section (1) of section 231 of the Cr.P.C. and the necessary corollary would be its obliteration. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER [I] Criminal Petition is allowed. [II] The order dated 16.09.2025 in S.C.No.72/2016 pending before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar, stands quashed, qua the petitioner. [III] The application filed by the State under Section 231(1) of Cr.P.C., is allowed. [IV] The concerned Court shall permit marking of the said documents and take the issue to its logical conclusion. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7