Partly allowed

B.Madhu Kumar v. G.Raghunath Reddy

Telangana HC10 Nov 2014CRLP/10976/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing a trial court order that permitted correction of prior depositions on technical grounds. The court set aside the permission to correct depositions but allowed recall of the witness for further cross-examination to ascertain truth pragmatically.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed to the extent of recalling PW1 for further cross-examination; set aside trial court order permitting correction of deposition.

B.Madhu Kumar Vs G.Raghunath Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10976 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order, dated 14-08-2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1614 of 2014 in C.C.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the II Special Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur.

¶4

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition.

¶5

3. Learned counsel for the first respondent strenuously submitted that there is no provision under Cr.P.C., for correction of depositions and the order of the court below is not legally sustainable.

¶6

4. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner, who is accused, is facing trial in C.C.No.9 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and also for correction of typographical mistake in the deposition of PW1. The trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the petition in part to the extent of correction of typographical mistake in the deposition of PW1 and dismissed to the extent of recalling PW1 for further cross-examination.

¶7

5. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the first respondent there is no provision under the Cr.P.C., for correction of depositions, which were recorded long back. It is settled principle of law that no one is entitled to change or make corrections in the depositions after signing of the same by the officer concerned. The trial Court allowed the petition to the extent of correction of typographical mistake, which is not permissible under law. Of course, the first respondent has not filed revision challenging the part of the order passed by the Court below.

¶8

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considerable view that the order of the court below to the extent of permitting

¶9

the petitioner/accused to make corrections in the deposition of PW1 is not legally sustainable.

¶10

7. The very purpose of cross-examination of the witness is to elicit relevant facts so as to unearth the truth. The petitioner might have filed a petition for further cross-examination of PW1 to elicit the relevant facts. The approach of the Court shall be pragmatic but not pedantic so far as this type of petitions are concerned.

¶11

8. Even if the petition is allowed to the extent of recalling of PW1 for further cross-examination no prejudice will be caused to the rights of respondents. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

¶12

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 1408-2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1614 of 2014 in C.C.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the II Special Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur to the extent of correction of deposition of PW1. However, the petition is allowed to the extent of recalling PW1 for further cross-examination. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶14

November 10, 2014 Pn

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10976 of 2014

¶17

November 10, 2014

¶18

B.Madhu Kumar v. G.Raghunath Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Madhu Kumar v. G.Raghunath Reddy

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

Syed Dasthagir, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Srinivas Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sukhavasi Subba Rao, (A4) Vs Sajja Nagavalli

Kolimi Jamal Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Chinnam Susheela Vs Vijaya Banl

Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh