Allowed

M/s Sri Venkateswara Global Trading Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Apr 2019CRLP/1280/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a docket order that recorded the cross-examination of the prosecution witness as Nil, holding that cross-examination is essential. The Court granted an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witness at lunch recess on the condition of paying specific costs to the witness.

What did the court decide?

The docket order dated 31.05.2018 setting cross-examination as Nil is set aside; accused granted opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 on 22.04.2019 subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 costs.

M/s Sri Venkateswara Global Trading Pvt. Ltd… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

Cr im in al Pet it ion No.1 2 8 0 of 2 0 1 9

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/ accused, seeking to quash the docket order, dated 31.05.2018, passed in C.C.No.127 of 2018 (Old C.C.No.258 of 2017 on the file of XXII Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad) by the XXIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby, the cross-examination of P.W.1 was recorded as Nil.

¶5

2 . Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶6

3 . It is contended on behalf of the petitioners/ accused that when the matter was posted before the Court below on 31.05.2018, the counsel for the petitioners/ accused was busy in some other Court. He could not reach the Court on time. Therefore, P.W.1 was not cross-examined and ultimately prayed to give an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 by allowing this petition.

¶7

4 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/ de-facto complainant would contend that there is no truth in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners/ accused and ultimately prayed to dismiss the application.

¶8

5 . It is pertinent to state that the petitioners/ accused are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is borne by the record that

¶9

¶10

P.W.1 was not at all cross-examined. To find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners/ accused, cross-examination of P.W.1 is essential. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the case is posted on 22.04.2019 before the Court below. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to afford one opportunity to the petitioners/ accused to cross-examine P.W.1 on some conditions.

¶11

6 . In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by setting aside the docket order, dated 31.05.2018, passed in C.C.No.127 of 2018 (Old C.C.No.258 of 2017 on the file of XXII Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad) by the XXIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, is set aside. The Court below shall allow the petitioners/ accused to cross-examine P.W.1, on 22.04.2019, before lunch recess, subject to the condition of the petitioners/ accused paying costs of Rs.1,000/ - (Rupees one thousand only) directly to P.W.1 before commencement of cross-examination. If the petitioners/ accused fail to conduct cross-examination of P.W.1 as indicated above, their right to cross-examine P.W.1 stands forfeited.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶13

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶15

10^th April, 2019

¶16

Not e: Furnish C.C. by 12.04.2019 (B/ O) Bvv

M/s Sri Venkateswara Global Trading Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Venkateswara Global Trading Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

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

Sri Sai Petro Lubes Vs The State of Telangana

Krishnaveni Rai alias Krishnaveni Challa Vs The State of Telangana

K.Ajay Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vemula Rachita Vs State of Telangana

N. Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Telangana Acb

M/s. Sri Venkateswara Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana