Telangana High Court
CRLP/3322/2006 of Smt. C.S.Radha Poornima, Vs M/s. Bhatia Finance, on 29 December 2009
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3322 OF 2006 DATE:29.12.2009 Between: Smt C.S.Radha Poornima …….Petitioner And: M/s. Bhatia Finance, rep. By its Partner Sri S. Jagat Singh Bhatia and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA
DATE:29.12.2009
Between:Smt C.S.Radha Poornima
And:
…….Petitioner
M/s. Bhatia Finance, rep. By its Partner Sri S. Jagat Singh Bhatia and another ……Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the accused/appellant under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure questioning the order dated 04.04.2006 passedby the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in CriminalM.P.No.1170 of 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2005 by which the lowercourt dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 391/311Cr.P.C refusing to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination in the appeal.
The respondent/complainant filed C.C.No.624 of 1999 in the then XVIIMetropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner/accused foroffence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentAct,1881. After trial, the trial court by the judgment dated 04.03.2005convicted the petitioner for the said offence and imposed sentence. Asagainst the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, thepetitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2005 in the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad. When the appeal has beenpending in the lower appellate court, the petitioner filed the present petitionfor recalling of P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross examination for putting asuggestion regarding non receipt of statutory notice by the accused. Thelower appellate Court came to the conclusion that no such opportunityshould be given to the petitioner for recalling P.W.1 because sufficientopportunity was given to the petitioner by the trial court for putting forward herdefence. The petitioner not only cross examined P.W1 at length during trialbut also examined himself as D.W.1. It is not as if the petitioner wasprevented from making any such suggestion when P.W.1 was put in boxduring trial. In those circumstances, the lower court rightly came to theconclusion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to recall P.W.1 for puttingfurther suggestion regarding non receipt of notice.
At this stage itself, this Court intends to make it clear that in a criminalcase, there is no need or necessity for giving any suggestions to theprosecution witnesses. It is for the prosecution/complainant to prove theircase beyond reasonable doubt. Simply because some suggestions are notput to some prosecution witnesses, the defence counsel cannot be shut outfrom arguing on that aspect. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel thatthere is ambiguity in evidence on the aspect of service of notice. If there isany such ambiguity, then it is for the accused/defence to take advantage ofthe same and to gain out of such ambiguity. I am sure that no criminal Courtwould disallow any contention of the defence counsel/appellant’s counsel onmere ground that there was no suggestion made by his counter part in thetrial Court when the prosecution witness was in box.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Date:29.12.2009
___________________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Gk.
Gk.
DATE:29.12.2009