Allowed

Smt.a.Sunitha, v. M/s Vetran Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC1 Jul 2011CRLP/3918/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the dismissal of an application for recall of witness P.W.1, the High Court set aside the impugned order. It held that while change of counsel is not grounds for re-examining a witness, the petitioner was granted an opportunity for further cross-examination on uncovered aspects of the development agreement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing the application for recall of P.W.1 is set aside; petitioner is entitled to further cross-examination on uncovered aspects.

Smt.a.Sunitha, Vs M/s Vetran Properties… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.3918 OF 2011

Between:

Smt.A.Sunitha

…Petitioner

A n d

M/s Vetran Properties Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Amit Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad and another.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.3918 OF 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C assailing the order dated 08.04.2011 in M.P.No.6059 of 2009 in C.C.No.197 of 2010, on the file of the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recall of P.W.1 for further crossexamination, was dismissed.

¶14

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondentState. Perused the records.

¶15

3. The first respondent herein filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. As seen from the impugned order, during the course of trial, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 in chief on 20.01.2011 and thereafter the matter underwent several adjournments and ultimately P.W.1 was crossexamined by the petitioner/accused. When the matter stood posted for examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C,

¶16

it appears that there was a change of counsel for the accused and an application was filed for recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination, As rightly observed by the trial Court, change of counsel would not afford a valid ground for re-opening of the evidence or re-call of witness for further examination. However, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to further cross-examine P.W.1 on the ground that certain relevant aspects pertaining to development agreement were not put to witness P.W.1 during the cross-examination.

¶17

4. In the circumstances, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner/accused to further cross-examine P.W.1 on the aspects which were not covered in the earlier cross-examination on a date fixed by the trial Court and if the petitioner/accused fails to avail the said opportunity, he shall not be entitled for further cross-examination of P.W.1 and it is open to the

¶18

learned Magistrate to proceed further in the matter. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.

¶19

5. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶20

_____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01^st July, 2011

¶21

Note: Issue CC in (3) days. B/o Lrkm.

Smt.a.Sunitha, v. M/s Vetran Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.a.Sunitha, v. M/s Vetran Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vemula Veera Swamy, (A1) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudavath Devudu, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Nalgonda

A.v.Sivarama Sai and Another Vs Smt.a.Savithri

Bontha Konda Sarveswara rao, Vs Bontha Annapruna Devi

Kodangu Vijaya Laxmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. P.Rajamma Vs M.Doraswamy Naidu