Allowed

Sri Avinash Kumar , Raju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Mar 2013CRLP/2178/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal trial for Section 338 IPC, the petitioner sought recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination, which was dismissed due to lack of detailed reasons. The High Court set aside the dismissal, directing the lower court to allow cross-examination, noting the inability to disclose all defence questions beforehand, with expenses borne by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the application to recall witnesses was set aside. The Learned Magistrate is directed to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further cross-examination by fixing a specific date.

Sri Avinash Kumar , Raju, Vs The State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2178 of 2013

¶3

Date: 19.03.2013

¶4

Between: Sri Avinash Kumar @Raju …Petitioner And The State of A.P.

¶5

…Respondent

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2178 of 2013

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.268 of 2013 in C.C.No.87 of 2012 by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶10

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶11

The petitioner is an accused before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 338 of IPC. During the course of trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined. Later, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further

¶12

cross-examination and the said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the purpose for which PWs.1 and 2 were to be recalled was not mentioned in the petition and no substantive reasons have been assigned for recalling the witnesses.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that certain important questions were not put to PWs.1 and 2 in the course of cross-examination which are essential to establish the defence of the petitioner/accused. As to this, I would like to state that it is not always possible for the petitioner to disclose the questions which he intends to put to the witnesses in the course of cross-examination. Therefore, merely on the ground that detailed reasons have not been assigned for recalling the witnesses, it would not be appropriate on the part of the learned Magistrate to dismiss the petition and I am of the view that the learned Magistrate ought to have afforded an opportunity

¶14

to the petitioner to further cross-examine PWs.1 and 2.

¶15

Under these circumstances, the order passed by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.268 of 2013 in C.C.No.87 of 2012 is hereby set aside. The learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further cross-examination by fixing a specific date. However, summoning the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination shall be at the expenses of the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this petition shall stand closed.

¶16

________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶17

Date: 19.03.2013 kvrm

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2178 of 2013

¶20

Date: 19.03.2013

Sri Avinash Kumar , Raju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Avinash Kumar , Raju, 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

Ilyas Ahmed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramineni Krishna Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dontha Hima Bindu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Dayakar Reddy Vs State of a.P., rep. through the P.P.

Kandragunta Ramcharan Vs The State of Ap.

Manoharlal Gupta, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh