Allowed

Kuna Santhosh Anil v. State of Ap., Rep.byits

Telangana HC7 Feb 2012CRLP/987/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order dismissing an application for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The witnesses could not be cross-examined in prior proceedings because the petitioners' counsel was absent. The court deemed it appropriate to provide an opportunity for cross-examination in a single sitting.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 13-7-2011 and confirmed order dated 15-11-2011; allowed the petitioners to cross-examine PWs.1, 2, and 4 in one sitting.

Kuna Santhosh Anil Vs State of Ap., Rep.byits — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CRL.P.No.987 of 2012

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A1 and A2 in C.C.No.322 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, to quash the order dated 15-11-2011 passed in Crl.R.P.No.71 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cumAdditional District Judge, Srikakulam.

¶5

The petitioners are A1 and A2 in C.C.No.322 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. PWs.1 and 2 came to be examined on 7-42011 whereas PW4 came to be examined on 1-7-2011. On both the dates, the petitioners could not crossexamine the witnesses since their counsel remained absent at the time of cross-examination of the said witnesses. The learned Magistrate on considering the contents of the petition and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 13-7-2011. Assailing the said order, the petitioners filed Crl.R.P.No.71 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs

¶6

(POA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. The said revision ended in dismissal as not maintainable on 15-11-2011. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the prayer stated supra.

¶7

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that PWs.1, 2 and 4 could not be cross-examined because the counsel engaged by them remained absent on 7-4-2011 and

¶9

1-7-2011. A further submission has been made that if opportunity of cross-examination of PWs.1, 2 and 4 is not allowed, there is every likelihood of their defence being greatly prejudiced.

¶10

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, in dismissing the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed on record the certified copies of depositions of PWs.1, 2 and 4. It indicates Pws.1 and 2 came to be examined on 7-4-2011 and PW4 came to be examined on 1-7-2011. The petitioners took the plea in the recall petition that on

¶12

1-7-2011, the counsel engaged by them remained absent and thereby, the cross-examination on their behalf treated as NIL. Since the cross examination of PWs.1, 2 and 4 came to be treated as NIL because of the counsel remaining absent on 1-7-2011, I deem it appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine PWs.1, 2 and 4.

¶13

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the order dated 13-7-2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.583 of 2011 in C.C.No.322 of 2010 as confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.71 of 2011, dated 15-11-2011 and consequently, Crl.M.P.No.583 of 2011 shall stand allowed subject to the petitioners cross-examining PWs.1 ,2 and 4 in one sitting.

¶14

__________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J

¶15

rkk Dated: 7-2-2012

Kuna Santhosh Anil v. State of Ap., Rep.byits

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuna Santhosh Anil v. State of Ap., Rep.byits

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

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

Kasani Veeresh, Vs B.Srinivasulu

Mareedu Raghavendra Kumar Vs The State of Ap., Rep.by its

Chinnam Veronica Vs State of a.P., rep.by P.P.