The Supreme Court recently noted that a crime witness would usually mention all perpetrators in the FIR. Selectively naming some while omitting others is unnatural, weakening the complainant's account. This omission, though otherwise irrelevant, becomes a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, the Court stated. Holding so, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the acquittal of an individual in a murder case after noting that the lead complainant (deceased's father) omitted to mention two perpetrators in FIR, who according to him were present at the crime incident accompanying the main accused in the commission of the crime. The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (February 5) issued notice to banks on a petition filed by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya, seeking a direction to the former to provide a statement of accounts for the amounts owed by him, United Breweries Holdings Limited (in liquidation) and other certificate debtors. Justice R Devdas issued the notice returnable on February 13. Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for petitioner submitted that winding up order against Kingfisher Airlines and holding company United Breweries Holdings Limited, (UBHL) attained finality and up to the Supreme Court the winding up has been confirmed. It was further submitted that the amount due had already been recovered, and even still additional recovery proceedings had been carried out against Mallya. Poovayya further submitted that the petition is filed not to indicate that loan amounts should not be paid, but under the Companies Act, if the debt is fully paid the guarantor company (UBHL) has no liability, and it can be revived, and for that, an application can be made for revival. That can happen only after the recovery officer issues a certificate saying that the debt has been recovered. To date the amount continues and recoveries continue and no order has been passed to say whether the primary debt is paid or not. The plea prays for a statement to be issued by the banks of amounts realised by or in their favour and details of the original owners of the assets utilized for realising the amounts following the amended recovery certificate dated 10.04.2017, issued by the DRT. Further, a statement of assets owned by the petitioner, UBHL or third parties, and which are available with the banks but not yet utilized for the purpose of satisfying the alleged debt owed under the amended recovery certificate. The Karnataka High Court has said that once a testator has admitted the execution of a Will in proceedings before the Court and pleadings are filed, there would be no requirement to further establish the authenticity of the Will in terms of Sections 67, 68 and 70 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Sarojini Bhanvi and another challenging an order of the trial court allowing the application made by Yallappa Kempanna Badiagawad, to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased Tayamma.