Dismissed

T.Nagaraju v. M.Santha Ram

Telangana HC6 Feb 2012CRLP/328/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order refusing to recall witnesses. The Court held that the trial court could not be faulted for dismissing the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. because the petitioner failed to mention specific reasons for recalling the witnesses, leaving no illegality or irregularity warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed.

T.Nagaraju Vs M.Santha Ram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.328 of 2012

¶3

Date:06th February, 2012

¶4

Between: T.Nagaraju S/o.T.Seshanna

¶5

..... Petitioner/Accused

¶6

AND

¶7

M.Santha Ram S/o.Dr.M.Krishna Murthy & Anr.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

Criminal Petition No.328 of 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the common order, dated 23.06.2011, passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1708 of 2011 and 1709 of 2011 in C.C.No.81 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, whereby and where under, the learned Magistrate refused to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner/accused.

¶14

2. The 1^st respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.81 of 2011. On behalf of the complainant two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2. The complainant closed his evidence and the accused came to be examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting the substance of incriminating circumstances

¶15

appearing in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. When the case stood posted for the evidence of the petitioner/accused, he filed two petitions being Crl.M.P.Nos.1708 and 1709 of 2011 - one is for reopening and the other is for recalling of PWs.1 and 2. The complainant filed counter resisting the applications filed by the accused. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the applications, by a common order, dated 23.06.2011. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioner/accused with the prayer stated supra.

¶16

3. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the petition.

¶17

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused could not cross-examine PW.1 and PW.2 effectively on certain aspects and therefore, PWs.1 and 2 are required to be recalled. A further submission has been made that the trial Court committed error in recording a finding that the issue of recall would be considered after conclusion of the trial.

¶18

5. I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P,.C. No reasons have been mentioned to recall PWs.1 and 2. In the absence of any reasons in the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the trial Court cannot be found fault for dismissing the applications. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the Criminal Petition warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶19

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶20

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶21

Date:06^th February, 2012.

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶24

Criminal Petition No.328 of 2012

¶25

Date:06th February, 2012

T.Nagaraju v. M.Santha Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Nagaraju v. M.Santha Ram

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

Jangili Nagender Rao Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

A. Venkata Subba Reddy Vs a. Lakshmi Devi

Vijjurothu Chinababu Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

Patchigolla Stanish Babu Vs The State of A.P.

Bonda Venkata Ratnam, (a-2), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Md.Abdul Latif , Sher , Ayub , Rabi Vs The State of Ap., Rep by its Public Prosecutor