Naqeeb Najeeb Mulla Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition challenging a trial Magistrate’s ruling during the recording of evidence in a private complaint alleging violations of the Goods and Services Tax Act involving the raising of fake invoices. The accused filed the petition after the Magistrate overruled an objection raised during the examination of the complainant as PW-1 on 15.11.2025.
In the trial proceedings, the complainant sought to refer to the contents of the complaint while deposing on factual aspects, including details such as the TIN number. The defence objected, arguing that the complainant could not refer to the complaint or documents at the stage of evidence before charge. The complainant’s counsel responded that the complainant was also the investigating officer and therefore could refer to the complaint. Accepting this contention, the trial Magistrate allowed the complainant to refer to the complaint.
The accused challenged this ruling before the High Court, contending that the decision caused a miscarriage of justice. The respondent supported the Magistrate’s ruling.
After examining the record, the High Court held that although the complainant, acting as the investigating officer, should not rely on investigation papers while deposing and must testify based on the investigation conducted, documents placed on record and supplied to the accused can be accessed by the witness. The Court further observed that once cognizance is taken, a private complaint assumes the nature of a First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore its contents may be referred to by the complainant during testimony. The Court also noted that witnesses cannot be expected to memorize details such as TIN numbers and may refer to relevant documents for that limited purpose. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
