Supreme Court sets aside Karnataka High Court order on simultaneous trials in misappropriation case: State of Karnataka vs. Annegowda (2006)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13/07/2006

Citation: Appeal (crl.) 759 of 2006

Judges: Ashok Bhan & Markandey Katju

Is it permissible for a High Court to direct a Trial Court to hold trials and record evidence in multiple cases simultaneously against the same accused? This question was addressed by the Supreme Court of India in an appeal against a decision of the High Court of Karnataka. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court erred in directing the Trial Court to defer recording evidence in multiple cases registered against the accused under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471(a) of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice Markandey Katju, overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that such a direction was not in accordance with the law.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case originated from the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, which initiated an inspection of its branches in October 1991. The inspection revealed a misappropriation of Rs. 5,13,50,629 by bank officials between July 1, 1981, and October 4, 1991. Following these findings, eleven cases were registered against the accused-respondent, Annegowda, under Sections 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471(a) (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the Indian Penal Code. The cases pertained to different periods from 1993 to 2001. The evidence in each case was voluminous, leading to a slow trial process.

Timeline:

Date	Event
First week of October 1991	Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Limited initiated a program to inspect its branches.
October 4, 1991	Internal Auditor began inspecting the accounts of the West of Chord Road II stage Branch.
1.7.1981 to 4.10.1991	Period during which a total sum of Rs. 5,13,50,629/- was misappropriated by Bank officials.
1993 to 2001	Eleven cases were registered against accused-respondent Annegowda under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 (a) of the Indian Penal Code.
August 2, 2002	Accused Annegowda filed an application under Section 309 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to defer recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. until all other 10 cases reach the same stage.
February 22, 2003	Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 309 Cr.P.C., and the Criminal Revision Petition No. 294 of 2002 filed before the Revisional Court was dismissed.
[Date not specified]	Respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court.
[Date not specified]	Learned Single Judge allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and directed the Trial Court to hold trial and record evidence in all cases simultaneously and dispose of them simultaneously as far as possible.

Course of Proceedings

In CC No. 8055 of 1993, during the stage of arguments, the accused, Annegowda, filed an application under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on August 2, 2002, requesting the court to defer recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. until all other ten cases against him reached the same stage. The Trial Court dismissed this application. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 294 of 2002 before the Revisional Court, which was also dismissed on February 22, 2003. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the Trial Court to hold the trial and record evidence in all the aforementioned cases simultaneously and dispose of them simultaneously as far as possible. The High Court accepted the respondent’s submission that he could not be forced to reveal his defense, as it would enable the prosecution to cover up lacunae in other pending cases. This direction was purportedly issued under the power conferred by Section 242 Cr.P.C., which the High Court interpreted as giving jurisdiction to defer cross-examination of material witnesses until all material witnesses are examined by the prosecution, as part of ensuring a fair trial.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which pertains to the trial of warrant-cases by Magistrates. The section states:

“242. Evidence for prosecution.- (1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 241 the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses.

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution;

Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.”

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 242 Cr.P.C. deals with recording evidence for the prosecution. While it allows for the deferment of cross-examination of witnesses, it does not provide for clubbing cases or conducting simultaneous trials for different cases registered against an accused.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

Respondent’s Argument: The respondent argued that he should not be compelled to disclose his defense in one case before the completion of trials in the other related cases. He contended that revealing his defense prematurely would allow the prosecution to rectify any shortcomings in the other cases, thereby prejudicing his defense.
State of Karnataka’s Argument: The State of Karnataka argued that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows the court to postpone the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. until the completion of trials in other cases. The State contended that the High Court erred in interpreting Section 242 Cr.P.C. to allow for such deferment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the High Court was correct in directing the Trial Court to defer the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. until the completion of trials in other cases involving similar transactions against the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Issue	Court’s Decision	Brief Reasons
Whether the High Court was correct in directing the Trial Court to defer the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. until the completion of trials in other cases involving similar transactions against the accused.	No. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction was incorrect.	The Court found no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows for the postponement of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. merely because other charge sheets have been filed against the same accused for similar offences.

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the recording of evidence for the prosecution in warrant cases tried by Magistrates. The Court clarified that while it allows for the deferment of cross-examination of witnesses, it does not provide for clubbing cases or conducting simultaneous trials.
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section pertains to the examination of the accused by the Court. The Court emphasized that there is no provision to postpone this examination until the completion of trials in other cases.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka and restoring those of the lower courts. The Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with the law.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission by the Party	How the Court Treated the Submission
Respondent’s argument that he should not be compelled to disclose his defense in one case before the completion of trials in the other related cases.	The Court rejected this argument, stating that the apprehension of the accused that he would be prejudiced in the trial of other cases if his statement is recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is without any basis and foundation.
State of Karnataka’s argument that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows the court to postpone the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. until the completion of trials in other cases.	The Court accepted this argument, holding that the High Court materially erred in concluding that the recording of the statement of the accused could be deferred until the trial in other cases is completed.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

Section 242 Cr.P.C.: The Court clarified that the High Court’s interpretation of this section to allow for the deferment of the examination of the accused was incorrect.
Section 313 Cr.P.C.: The Court emphasized that there is no provision to postpone the examination of the accused under this section until the completion of trials in other cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the procedural law, specifically Sections 242 and 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. that allows for the postponement of the examination of the accused under Section 313 until the completion of trials in other related cases. The Court also noted that the accused would have already disclosed his defense during the cross-examination of the 25 witnesses who had already been examined.

Reason	Percentage
Interpretation of Section 242 Cr.P.C.	40%
Interpretation of Section 313 Cr.P.C.	40%
Accused’s disclosure of defense during cross-examination	20%

Fact:Law

Category	Percentage
Fact	30%
Law	70%

Key Takeaways

Courts cannot defer the examination of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pending the completion of trials in related cases.
The interpretation of Section 242 Cr.P.C. does not allow for the deferment of the examination of the accused.
Accused persons are expected to disclose their defense during the cross-examination of witnesses, not solely during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows a court to postpone the examination of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. until the completion of trials in other cases, even if those cases involve similar transactions. This clarifies the scope and application of Sections 242 and 313 Cr.P.C.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Annegowda clarifies that courts cannot defer the examination of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pending the completion of trials in related cases. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing that such a direction is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

FAQ

Can a court postpone the examination of an accused in one case until the trials in other related cases are completed?
No, the Supreme Court has clarified that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows a court to postpone the examination of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. until the completion of trials in other related cases.
What is the significance of Section 242 Cr.P.C. in the context of this judgment?
Section 242 Cr.P.C. deals with the recording of evidence for the prosecution in warrant cases tried by Magistrates. The Supreme Court clarified that while it allows for the deferment of cross-examination of witnesses, it does not provide for clubbing cases or conducting simultaneous trials.
What should an accused do if they believe that disclosing their defense in one case will prejudice their defense in other related cases?
The Supreme Court has stated that the apprehension of the accused that they would be prejudiced in the trial of other cases if their statement is recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is without any basis and foundation. The Court noted that the accused would have already disclosed their defense during the cross-examination of witnesses.

Source: State of Karnataka vs. Annegowda