<p>Bengaluru: It is not the purport of CrPC section 91 that an accused should be driven for securing documents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Karnataka High Court observed in a recent judgement.</p><p> Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while allowing the petition filed by Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru, the pontiff of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhanmutt, Chitradurga.</p><p>The seer is facing charges for the offences punishable under IPC sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(DA) section 5(l) read with section 6 of Pocso Act, based on the complaint filed by two minor girls. </p><p>He had challenged the January 29, 2025 order passed by the special court, rejecting his application filed under CrPC section 91, seeking certain documents pertaining to the case.</p> .Karnataka High Court asks Madikeri temple not to stop those wearing decent traditional attire.<p>The seer’s application before the special court was seeking the copies of the Station House Dairy between July 24, 2022 and July 28, 2022 at Cottonpet Police station in Bengaluru City, Duty Roaster maintained at the police station for the month of July 2022, Note Book of two patrolling police officials from July 24, 2022 to July 28, 2022, log book and digital entries of two Hoysala patrolling vehicles, Statement of Account pertaining to three Phonepe numbers and an Email dated August 26, 2022, sent by Odanadi Mysuru to CWC, Mysuru.</p><p>The prosecution had filed objections stating that the accused seer could have secured these details by filing an application under the RTI. This objection was taken note of by the court and the application was rejected.</p> .<p>Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the rejection of the application on the face of it was illegal as it was not the purport of CrPC section 91 that an accused should be driven for securing documents under the RTI when an application is filed under Section 91 of CrPC. </p><p>“The prosecution shall place on record the documents that are sought by the petitioner at the appropriate stage in the trial,” the court said while quashing the order passed by the trial court.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: It is not the purport of CrPC section 91 that an accused should be driven for securing documents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Karnataka High Court observed in a recent judgement.</p><p> Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while allowing the petition filed by Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru, the pontiff of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhanmutt, Chitradurga.</p><p>The seer is facing charges for the offences punishable under IPC sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(DA) section 5(l) read with section 6 of Pocso Act, based on the complaint filed by two minor girls. </p><p>He had challenged the January 29, 2025 order passed by the special court, rejecting his application filed under CrPC section 91, seeking certain documents pertaining to the case.</p> .Karnataka High Court asks Madikeri temple not to stop those wearing decent traditional attire.<p>The seer’s application before the special court was seeking the copies of the Station House Dairy between July 24, 2022 and July 28, 2022 at Cottonpet Police station in Bengaluru City, Duty Roaster maintained at the police station for the month of July 2022, Note Book of two patrolling police officials from July 24, 2022 to July 28, 2022, log book and digital entries of two Hoysala patrolling vehicles, Statement of Account pertaining to three Phonepe numbers and an Email dated August 26, 2022, sent by Odanadi Mysuru to CWC, Mysuru.</p><p>The prosecution had filed objections stating that the accused seer could have secured these details by filing an application under the RTI. This objection was taken note of by the court and the application was rejected.</p> .<p>Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the rejection of the application on the face of it was illegal as it was not the purport of CrPC section 91 that an accused should be driven for securing documents under the RTI when an application is filed under Section 91 of CrPC. </p><p>“The prosecution shall place on record the documents that are sought by the petitioner at the appropriate stage in the trial,” the court said while quashing the order passed by the trial court.</p>