[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Naqeeb Najeeb Mulla vs Superintendent Of Central Tax on 4 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1586
CRL.P No. 104956 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104956 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
NAQEEB NAJEEB MULLA
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. TAX CONSULTANT,
R/O. AZAM NAGAR, 42/1A,
OPP 7TH DAY SCHOOL 5TH CROSS,
BELAGAVI 590010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX OFFICE
HEAD QUARTERS PREVENTIVE UNIT,
BELAGAVI GST COMMISSIONERATE
NO.71, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001,
REP. BY CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD 580001.
Digitally signed by ...RESPONDENT
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
Dharwad Bench
CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED.15.11.2025 PASSED BY
JMFC-II, BELAGAVI IN CC NO.19/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.132(1)(i) R/W. SEC.132(5) OF KARNATAKA GOODS
AND SERVICES ACT 2017 R/W.SEC.20 OF THE IGST ACT, 2017 AND
SEC.120(b) OF THE IPC, BY WHICH IT ALLOWED TO CONTINUE CHIEF
EXAMINATION OF PW.1 AND THE SAID CHIEF EXAMINATION OF PW.1
BE DELETED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1586
CRL.P No. 104956 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri.R.M.Javed and Sri.Shivarj S. Balloli, for the
parties.
2. The accused is the petitioner, being aggrieved by the
ruling given by the learned trial Magistrate on the objection
raised by the accused while examining the complainant as PW-1
on 15.11.2025.
3. The complainant filed a private complaint alleging
violation of the provisions of Goods and Services Tax Act,
inasmuch as, during the preliminary investigation, it was noticed
that fake invoices had been raised by the accused.
4. After completing the necessary formalities, evidence
before charge is being recorded by the learned trial magistrate.
5. At that juncture, the complainant wanted to refer to
the complaint averments insofar as deposing the factual aspects,
including namely the TIN number etc. The same was objected to
by the counsel for defence, stating that he is not entitled to refer
to the complaint averments.
6. The said objection was overruled by the learned trial
Magistrate.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1586
HC-KAR
7. The said relevant portion of the deposition reads as
under:
"Counsel for accused submits that the complainant is
referring the contents of the complaint and deposing before
the Court. As the witness is the complainant, he cannot refer
the complaint and the documents in the stage of evidence
before charge.
Counsel for complainant submits that the
complainant is also the investigating officer. Therefore, he
can refer the complaint.
Since it is stated that the complainant is the
investigating officer of the case, he is permitted to refer the
complaint."
8. The validity of the said ruling is called in question by
the accused in this petition.
9. Sri.R.M.Javed, learned counsel appearing for the
accused-petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition
would contend that the trial Magistrate, in overruling the
objection raised on behalf of the accused has resulted in a
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1586
HC-KAR
10. Per contra, Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel
appearing for respondent supports the impugned ruling.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, the
complainant, being the Investigation Officer, is not entitled to
look into the investigation papers and should depose based on
the investigation that he has been conducted.
13. However, the documents that have been placed on
record being supplied to the accused can be accessed by him.
Likewise, the private complaint, once it takes cognizance,
partakes the nature of a FIR under Section 154 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and therefore, the contents of the complaint
can also be looked into by the complainant, who is examined as
PW-1.
14. Further, no witness is expected to memorize the TIN
number etc., and for that limited purpose, he is allowed to refer
to the papers which have been furnished to the accused.
15. Therefore, the overruling of the objection by the
learned trial magistrate is just and proper in the attendant facts
and circumstances of the case and requires no interference by
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1586
HC-KAR
this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
16. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
RHR, CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35
