Sri. G.N. Jadgoudra and Others vs Akhila Bharata Kuruhinashetty Sangha (Regd.), Malleswaram

G. Patri Basavana Goud, J.—On a complaint presented by the Respondent-complainant u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has proceeded to record sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses, and on that basis, has directed registering of case against the Petitioners-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 465, 469, 471, 420 Indian Penal Code and has directed issuing of process. Same is called in question in this revision petition.

The sworn statement of the complainant and of the witnesses would show that, the examination-in-chief is conducted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sri N.R. Naik, learned Counsel for the Respondent-complainant submits that the case was one on a private complaint, and that the complainant had been represented by an Advocate, and therefore, in the circumstances, the reference in the sworn statement at the top to the effect that the examination-in-chief is by Assistant Public Prosecutor would clearly indicate that while typing the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses, the typist has routinely used the deposition sheets wherein these words "Examination-in-chief by APP" would have already been typed, and that is how the said words are to be found in these sworn statements, but that, in fact APP had not conducted and could not conduct the examination-in-chief. Sri Chandrashekar Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on the other hand submits that, the note made has to be given its due weight, and the assumption as made above by Sri N.R. Naik, learned Counsel for the Respondent, cannot be held against the Petitioners.

Giving due weight to whatever note is made, I am of the opinion that, examination-in-chief is conducted by a legal practitioner. Such a course of action is impermissible in the light of what this Court said in Naganagouda Veeranagouda Patil and another Vs. Malatesh H. Kulkarni, as also in unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2709 of 1997 (T.G. Gani and Ors. v. Abdul Sattar) disposed of on 10.8.1999.

Petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further in accordance with law.