CRLRC/581/2025 of Bandari Sampath Vs State of Telangana on 31 October 2025

ORDER:

Challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.457 of 2025 in SC.(POCSO) No.25 o,t )OZq passed by learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under pOCSO Act (l Additional Sessions Judge), Hanumakonda, petitioner- accused filed this Criminal Revision Case seeking to quash the impugned order.

2. Heard Mr.Pullabhotla Vlas, learned counsel for the petitioner and tvlr.tl4.Ramachandra Reddy, learned. Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The brief facts herein are that the petitioner filed section 311 Cr.P.C. petition to recall PW1 and PW2 for the purpose of further cross examination, wherein the trial Court passed the following order - "Counter filed. Heard bofh srdes. perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and entire record and as lf is evident from the record that PW1 was cross examined in chief on 16.06.2025 and further cross examined on 23.06.2025 and reexamination of PWl was recorded as nil. Now at this stage, again PW1 cannot be permitted to recall on thet grounds submitted by the petitioner without causing prejudice to the case of prosecution. lf called it amounts in absence process of law and will enable the petitioner to filt up the racunae in the evidence. Hence this court is not inclined to artow the petition in respect of PW1. However, coming to the cross of PW2, fhe cross of pW2 was adjourned on 24.06.2025 and 14.07.2025. The petitioner/accused reques;ted time to adjourn the matter as his counsel was not present and went to appear before the Hon'ble High Court to submit arguments in his bait petition. Srnce then the cross of PW2 is recorded as nil. And in view of the concept of fair tiat and to elicit true facts, this Court is inclined to allow the petition permitting the recall pW2 for cross examination. However on the grounds and conditions fo cross examine her as and when she appears before the Court and on payment of Rs.5,000/- towards batta of PW2 and to handover the questions to the Court fo pose the same to PW2 for cross of PW2. ln the result, the petition is parfly allowed to meet ends of justice."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recall of PW1 for further cross examination is essential to determine the veracity of statements made in the complaint and the evidence of PW1 is essential for just decision of case. He further submit that trial Court failed to give an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of prosecution and it would be a violation of the constitutional guarantee to the petitioner. Hence prays to allow the petition. \

5. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the order and the interference of this Court is not required at this stage. Hence, prays to dismiss the criminal revision case

6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is facing trial for offences punishable under the POCSO ,Act. The Trial Court, in its impugned order, has rightly observed that recalling PW1 for further cross-examination would merely afford the petitioner an opportunity to fill up the lacunae in his defence. Neverthetess, in the true spirit of fairness, the Trial Court has correctly held that since PW2 had not been cross-examined earlier, it would be appropriate, in the interest of a fair trial and for eliciting the true facts, to permit the recall of PW2 for cross-examination, thereby partly allowing the petition.

7. This court is of the considered view that the Triar court has already concluded the cross-examination of PW1, and permitting a further recall at this stage would amount to an abuse c,f the process of law, intended only to protract the proceedings. However, since the recall of PW2 was allowed only because his cross-examination had been earlier deferred at the request of the petitioner, no i \ I II t illegality or impropriety can be found in the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed soi- rvroxD.lsMAlL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G To, ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER l.TheLRAT-cum-lAdditionalDistrict&SessionsJudge,Hanumakonda.

2. oneCCtoSRI.PULLABHoTLAVLSSRICHAKRAPANIAdvocate[oPUC]

3. OneCCtoTHEPUBLICP-ROSECUTOR'HighCourtfortheStateof e' i;i;riGti;, HYderabad' [our]

4. Two CD CoPies Pk

HIGH COURT DATED i3111012025

ORDER

CRLRC.No.S81 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRLRC , e a.i ,] L o

'/,$ ; l\:. () L L 7W '-t /) acrp&Ak" .

ii :I II :._ !i i l I I I I it I I II i i : :