Partly allowed

Arumalla Sasi Devi, v. M/s Ahalada Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC15 Jul 2011CRLRC/2129/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding an application to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a cheque dishonour case, the High Court allowed further cross-examination conditioned upon payment of costs by the petitioner. The court set strict timelines for completion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed a single opportunity to recall and further cross-examine P.W.1 on payment of Rs. 1000/- costs within two weeks, subject to forfeiture on default.

Arumalla Sasi Devi, Vs M/s Ahalada Engineering Pvt. Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2129 OF 2010

¶3

DATED:15.07.2011

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 29.09.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.5427 of 2010 in C.C.No.331 of 2009 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-A3 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination, was dismissed.

¶6

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶7

3. Petitioner-A3 along with others is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the 1^st respondent herein. It is stated that the matter now stands posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage, petitioner-A3 filed the application to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. The learned Magistrate dismissed the same observing that only after imposing the costs, ranging from Rs.200/- to Rs.3000/- the accused came forward to cross examine the witness and now she is seeking to recall the witness for further cross-

¶8

examination without any reasonable cause.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that just one opportunity may be given to the petitioner-A3 to further cross-examine P.W.1.

¶10

5. The above request of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted in the interest of a fair trial, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.1000/- (rupees one thousand only) to the other side and shall complete the further cross-examination of P.W.1 within two weeks from today and in the event of her failure to avail a single opportunity her right to further crossexamine P.W.1 would stand forfeited and it is open to the trial Court to proceed with the matter further in accordance with law. The trial Court may dispose of the case at an early date, preferably within a period of three months. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶11

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶12

15^th July, 2011. Tsy

Arumalla Sasi Devi, v. M/s Ahalada Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumalla Sasi Devi, v. M/s Ahalada Engineering 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

B.Chandra Reddy, Vs T.Pratap Reddy

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Abbas Khan

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs G.Bhaskar Reddy

Arumalla Sasi Devi Vs M/s. Ahalada Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Nampally Srinivas Vs Nampally Swapna , Laxmi

Bhogaraju Thirupathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh