Dismissed

Shashi Arora, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Aug 2012CRLP/5759/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of a prosecution witness for further cross-examination. The Court held that since no miscarriage of justice would result and the witness information was not essential, the lower court was not obligated to recall the witness.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the prosecution witness is dismissed.

Shashi Arora, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

Criminal Petition No.5759 of 2012

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioner/accused is aggrieved by order passed by the Magistrate refusing to recall PW.1 for further crossexamination by the petitioner and consequently dismissing the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. No doubt, a witness can be recalled at any time by any party at any stage of the proceedings and even at an appellate stage. But at the same time, the said facility has to be resorted to only to meet ends of justice and for proper disposal of the case.

¶5

The petitioner is accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 in the lower Court. The case was filed in the lower Court in the year 2009. After closure of complainant’s evidence and examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after the complainant’s arguments are heard, and when the matter was posted in the lower Court for defence arguments, there was change of advocate for the accused and it resulted in filing of the present petition in the lower Court for recalling

¶6

PWs. 1 and 2. The petitioner’s counsel states that now he is not pressing for recalling of PW.2. It is contended that few questions have to be put to PW.1 with regard to drawing of money from bank for payment to the accused. The previous counsel cross-examined PW.1 extensively including on the aspects touching consideration. It is contended that it is to be elicited as to from which bank the money was drawn and from which account. Eliciting of the said information may not

¶7

be necessary in further cross-examination, as the complainant can always address on improbabilities and on not filing referable information/documents, during the course of arguments. In the circumstances, I do not find any miscarriage of justice if PW.1 is not recalled and that it is not necessary for just disposal of the case by the lower Court.

¶8

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶9

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶10

Dt. 1^st August, 2012

¶11

PNV

Shashi Arora, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Arora, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Yalamanchili Bhubaneswari Devi Vs State of Ap.

N.Sharada Kumari Vs State of Ap.

Mayank Trivedi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Puli Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasagiri Kiran Kumar Vs Dasagiri Lavanya

Koropolu Venkata Narasimha Murthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh