Trial Procedure: Investigating Officer's Right to Refer to Documents During Deposition

Trial Procedure: Investigating Officer’s Right to Refer to Documents During Deposition

In this significant ruling regarding GST criminal prosecutions, the Karnataka High Court (2026) addressed the procedural bounds of witness testimony. The court clarified how much an Investigating Officer (IO), acting as the complainant, can rely on written records while testifying in court.

The Legal Conflict: Memory vs. Record

The case arose during the “pre-charge” evidence stage of a private complaint involving fake GST invoices.

The Incident: While testifying as the first witness (PW-1), the IO sought to refer to the complaint and investigation papers to provide specific factual details, such as Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs).
The Objection: The defense argued that a witness must depose from memory and is not entitled to “read” from investigation papers or the complaint during examination.
The Question: Can a GST officer refresh their memory using the case file for technical data like TINs and registration details?

The Decision: Practicality Over Pedantry

The High Court dismissed the challenge filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC) and upheld the Magistrate’s order:

Complaint as a Foundational Document: The court noted that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of a private complaint, that document takes on the character of a First Information Report (FIR). Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refer to it.
The “Memory” Standard: The court held that while an IO should generally depose based on the investigation conducted, it is unreasonable to expect any witness to memorize technical strings like 15-digit TINs or complex alphanumeric GSTINs.
No Prejudice to Accused: Since the documents the IO referred to had already been supplied to the accused, there was no element of surprise or “secret evidence.” Referring to these papers to ensure factual accuracy does not violate the rights of the accused.
Permissible Limits: The court allowed limited reference to the furnished papers for specific factual particulars, ensuring the trial proceeds on accurate data rather than potentially flawed human memory.

Key Legal Provisions Involved

Statute	Section	Context
CGST Act, 2017	Section 132	Punishment for certain offences (Fake invoices/ITC fraud).
BNSS, 2023	Section 482	Inherent powers of the High Court (to prevent abuse of process).
Evidence Act	Section 159/160	Refreshing memory by referring to writing made at the time of the transaction.

Key Takeaways for Tax Professionals & Litigants

Accuracy is Paramount: In GST fraud trials, technical details (TINs, invoice dates, amounts) are the backbone of the case. Courts prioritize the accuracy of these details over the witness’s ability to recite them from memory.
Pre-Charge Stage Rights: The defense cannot block an officer from ensuring their testimony aligns with the filed complaint, especially when the defense already possesses copies of those documents.
Transition to BNSS: This case is a prime example of how the courts are applying the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, while maintaining the core principles of the older criminal procedure (CrPC).

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Naqeeb Najeeb Mulla

Superintendent of Central Tax^*

V. Srishananda, J.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104956 OF 2025

FEBRUARY 4, 2026

R.M. Javed, Adv. for the Petitioner. Shivaraj S. Balloli, Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

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.

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.

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 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.