STATE OF KARNATAKAversusANNEGOWDA

                          ST ATE OF KARNATAKA                                     A
                                     v.
                               ANNEGOWDA

                                JULY 13,2006.

             [ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]                               B


      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 242-Postponing of the
recording of statement of acrnsed under section 313 till completion of trial
in other cases involving similar transaction against accused-Held: Under          C
section 242 cross examination of accused under Section 313 cannot be
deferred till completion of trial in other cases-It cannot be said that if his
statement is recorded he would be required to divulge his defence.

      The question which arises for consideration in this appeal was whether
under the provisions of section 242 Cr.P.C. recording of statement of accused-    D
respondent under section 313 could be deferred till the trial in other cases
involving similar transactions against the accused is completed.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: l.l. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure          E
which enables the Court to postpone the examination of the accused under
section 313 Cr.P.C. till the complttion.of the trial in other cases. Merely
because certain other charge sheets have been filed against the same accused
for similar offences cannot be a ground to postpone the examination of the
accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.1504-E-Fl
                                                                                  F
       1.2. In the instant case, as many as 11 charge sheets pertaining to
different periods have been filed against the respondent-accused. It is only in
one case the trial has been completed and has reached the stage of examination
of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. The apprehension of the respondent-
accused that if his statement is recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. he would      G
be required to divulge his defence and in that event he would be prejudiced in
the trial of other cases filed against him is without any basis and foundation.
As many as 25 witnesses have already been examined and the witnesses have
already been cross-examined by the advocate for the accused. It is reasonable
to infer that during the course of his cross-examination the accused-
                                     ~!                                           H
    502                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A respondent must have disclosed his defence. It cannot be said that the accused
    is required to divulge his defence only during his examination under Section
    313 Cr.P.C. The charges in other cases against the accused may be under
    the same provisions of Indian Penal Code and may also be similar but
    documentary or oral evidence may be different which ultimately has to be
B   appreciated and evaluated by the Court separately in each case.
                                                         1504-E; 504-F-H; 505-AI

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 759 of
    2006.

C         From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore
    dated 11.2.2003 in Criminal Petition No. 505/2003.

            Sanjay R. Hegde for the Appellant.

            E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Respondent.

D           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            BHAN, J. Leave granted.

          State of Karnataka has filed the present appeal against the order of
    learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka wherein and whereby
E   the High Court while setting aside the judgment and order of the courts below
    has directed the Trial Court to record evidence in the eleven cases registered
    against the accused-respondent under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471(a) of Indian
    Penal Code pertaining to different periods from 1993 to 200 I.

        During the first week of October, 1991, Karntaka State Co-operative
F Apex Bank Limited (for short "the complainant") drew a programme of
  inspection of branches of the Bank and directed the then Internal Auditor to
  inspect the accounts of the branches. The Internal Auditor took up inspection
  of West of Chord Road II stage Branch on 4.10.1991 and submitted three
  reports which revealed that a total sum of Rs. 5, 13,50,629/- was misappropriated
G by the Bank officials during the period from 1.7.1981to4.10.1991. Against
  accused-respondent Annegowda 11 cases. namely, CC No. 8055/93, CC No.
  8165/94, CC No. 8195/2000, CC No. 819612000, CC No. 8197/2000, CC No. 8198/
  2000, CC No. 8097/2001, CC No. 8098/200 I, CC No. 8099/200 I, CC No. 8100/
  2001 and CC 8101/001 were registered. In all these cases accused-respondent
  is the main accused. Evidence in each of these cases is voluminous and
H
             ST ATE OF KARNATAKA v. ANNEGOWDA [BHAN, J.]                    503
n~cessarily, the trial of each case will be slow.                                  A
       In CC No. 8055 of 1993, which is now at the stage of arguments,
 accused Annegowda filed an applicatio[I under Section 309 Cr.P.C. ()!12.8.2002
 requesting the Court to defer the recording of his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. till all the other 10 cases against him reach the stage of the statement
of the accused. Trial Court dismissed the said application, aggrieved against      B
which respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 294 of2002 before the
Revisional Court which was dismissed on 22.2.2003. Thereafter, Respondent
filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court which has been
allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order and a direction
has been issued to the Trial Court to hold trial and record evidence in all the    C
aforesaid cases simultaneously and dispose of the same simultaneously as far
as possible. Submission made on behalf of the respondent that he could not
be forced to reveal his defence as it would enable the prosecution to cover
up the lacunae in other cases which are pending in trial was accepted. This
direction has been issued in the purported exercise of power conferred under
Section 242 Cr.P.C. which according to the learned Single Judge gives the          D
jurisdiction to a Court to defer cross examination of the material witnesses
until all the material witnesses are examined by the prosecution as part of fair
trial.

      Counsels for the parties have been heard.
                                                                                   E
     Section 242 finds its place in Chapter XIX "Trial of warrant-cases by
Magistrates" of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads:

       "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 24 l the Magistrate shall fix a     F
             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.
                                                                                   G
       (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."             H
    504                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         Section 242 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the recording of evidence of
   prosecution. Clause (I) of the Section provides that 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. The Magistrate is authorised under Clause (2) to
B issue a summons to any of the witnesses directing him to attend or to
   produce any document or other thing and under Clause (3) on the date fixed
   the Magistrate is enjoyed upon to take all such evidence as may be produced
   in its support by the prosecution. Proviso perm its 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. It does not deal
C with either the clubbing of cases registered against the accused or simultaneous
   trial of different cases registered against an accused. On an earlier occasion
   the respondent had filed an application under Section 312 read with Section
   219 Cr.P.C. in this case seeking a direction to club CC No. 8165 of 1994 with
   this case and to hold a common trial. The said application came to be rejected
   by the Magistrate on 4. 7.1994. Against the said order the respondent filed a
D Criminal Revision Petition No. 75 of 1995 before the XXlll, Addi. City Civil
   and Sessions Judge, who heard the matter and dismissed the same by its
  judgment and order dated 15. 7.1995. It was held that there was no reason to
   club the matter and to hold a common trial. However, a direction was given
   to expedite the trial of CC No. 8165 of 1994 and if possible dispose it off
E simultaneously with the present case.
         There is no dispute that as many as 11 charge sheets pertaining to
  different periods have been filed against the respondent. It is only in one case
  the trial has been completed and has reached the stage of examination of the
  accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. There is no provision in the Code of
F Criminal Procedure which enables the Court to postpone the examination of
  the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. till the completion of the trial in other
  cases. Merely because certain other charge sheets have been filed against the
  same accused for similar offences cannot be a ground to postpone the
  examination of the accused under Section 313 ofCr.P.C. The apprehension of
G the respondent-accused that if his statement is recorded under Section 313
  Cr.P.C. he would be required to divulge his defence and in that event he would
  be prejudiced in the trial of other cases filed against him is without any basis
  and foundation. It may be taken note of that in as many as 25 witnesses have
  already been examined and the witnesses have already been cross-examined
  by the advocate for the accused. It is reasonable to infer that during the
H course of his cross-examination the accused-respondent must have disclosed
            STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ANNEGOWDA [BHAN,!.)                     505
his defence. The statement on behalf of the accused that he is required to A
divulge his defence only during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
cannot be accepted. The charges in otlier cases against the accused may be
under the same provisions of Indian Penal Code and may also be similar but
documentary or oral evidence may be different which ultimately has to be
appreciated and evaluated by the Court separately in each case. It can be
taken judicial note and kept in mind that completion of trial in other ten charge B
sheets may take some more time. The High Court has materially erred in
coming to the conclusion that under the provisions of Section 242 Cr.P.C.
recording of statement of accused-respondent under Section 313 could be
deferred till the trial in other cases involving similar transactions against the
accused is completed.                                                             C
      For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kamataka is set aside
and those of courts below are restored. Trial Court may now proceed in
accordance with law.

N.J.                                                         Appeal allowed.