- (1.)The present petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the III Addl. Sessions and Special Judge for CBI cases at Dharwad in Special (CBI) CC No.1/2013 in allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 173(5)(8) read with Section 311 of Cr.PC.
(2.)The brief factual matrix that emanate from the record which led to filing of this Petition are: The CBI, ACB, Bangalore, has filed a charge sheet against the petitioner (A1) and others for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 471, 409, 477-A, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also u/s.13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. After due investigation, the Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet and after committal, the case has been taken up by the IIII Addl. Sessions and Special Judge for CBI cases at Dharwad.
(3.)The allegations made against the petitioner and others are that, the petitioner while working as a Clerk in Varada Grameena Bank during the years 1995 to 1998, he was also placed in charge of the Varada Grameena Bank Extension Counter, Gotehalli, Karwar Taluka, he entered into a Criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, presented false documents as genuine and created false accounts and cheated the Bank. He fraudulently diverted the bank s funds from the heads of interest, deposits to his own accounts, to the account of A2 to A4, also to the account of his wife and knocked off Rs.34,60,643/- with active collusion with other accused. During the course of investigation, it appears, the Investigating Officer has seized/collected some withdrawal slips, credit slips, pay-in-slips and etc., The signatures on those documents were denied by A1. It is an undisputed fact that during the course of investigation, these documents were not sent for handwriting expert in order to ascertain the signature on these documents were that of A1? It is the further allegation against A1 that he used to issue such withdrawal slips, credit slips and pay-in-slips on behalf of the customers who are un-educated or semieducated. After framing the charges, the trial Court has completed the trial and also heard the arguments for some time, at the time of arguments, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the accused that the Investigation Officer has not taken pains to send these disputed credit slips/withdrawal slips/pay-in-slips to the experts in order to get confirmation of the disputed signature of A1. Having awakened by the said arguments of the learned Counsel, it appears, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI filed an application u/s.311 of CR.PC seeking the indulgence of the Court to secure the experts evidence who has actually examined these three documents in a Civil case in OS No.20/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Karwar. The learned Trial Judge, dismissed the said application filed u/s.311 of Cr.PC and refused to summon the hand-writing or finger print expert, to examine the said document filed in OS No.20/2001 on the ground that the said documents as well as the report of the expert were not placed before the Court by the prosecution. It is further seen that in order to cure this defect, one more application was filed u/s.173(5) and (8) read with Section 311 of Cr. PC seeking the indulgence of the court to secure the said document as well as the report of the expert and also to summon the said expert before the court for the purpose of giving evidence. So far as the second application filed under the above said provisions, is concerned it was seriously contested by A1. The learned Special Judge for CBI, after giving thorough anxious consideration, so far as the contention raised by the accused, has allowed the said application and permitted the prosecution to lead further evidence by means of summoning the handwriting expert and also to lead evidence with regard to the hand-writing expert s report on the above said disputed documents.