( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. G. Krishna Murthy and smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned Public prosecutor.

( 2 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience, to quash the proceeding sin Crl. MP. No. 89/2002 in S. C. No. 1045/2000 on the file of Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, dt. 11-10-2002 and direct the learned Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Tenali to recall P. W. 1 to p. W. 3 to cross-examine them in the interest of justice and pass such other appropriate orders.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: the petitioner is Accused No. 2 in S. C. No. 1045/2000 on the file of Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali and there were three accused including the petitioner. During the pendency of trial, A-1 died and the petitioner and A-3 are facing the trial for the offence under Section 307ipc. It was also stated that the prosecution examined P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 in the month of April, 2002 and on that day the petitioners counsel could not examine P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and the learned assistant Sessions Judge closed the cross- examination. Later on, an application was filed in Crl. M. P. No. 30/2002 to recall P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and the said application was allowed on 25-1-2002, subject to payment of batta. It is also stated that the counsel representing the accused became a Public Prosecutor and as such he could not pay the batta and the petition was dismissed on 9-8-2000. It is further stated that another fresh application was filed through an Advocate to recall p. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and the said application was ultimately allowed on 23-9-2000 on payment of deposit of Rs. 100/- each and posted the matter to 1-10-2002. It is also stated that on 1-10-2002, the Prosecution did not produce p. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and the Court had ordered fresh summons and posted the matter to 9-10-2002. The summons were sent to P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 for the second time, but they did not attend the Court on 9-10-2002 and hence the said application was closed. As stated supra, both the applications were dismissed. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed another application i. e. , Crl. M. P. No. 89/2002 and the said application was dismissed on 11-10-2002 by the learned Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Tenali on the ground that the earlier applications were dismissed and had posted the matter to 23-12-2002 for hearing. It is further stated that the petitioner filed the criminal Revision Petition is C. F. R. No. 3128 of 2002 on the file of Sessions Judge, Guntur and the said application was dismissed on 11-12-2002. It is further stated that cross- examination of P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 is very essential for the just decision in the above case and if opportunity is not given to the petitioner, he will be put to serious loss.

( 4 ) SRI K. G. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had contended that the powers conferred on the court under Section 311 of the Code are very wide and unfortunately the trial Judge had not exercised the discretion properly and had deprived the petitioner of the valuable right of cross-examination by dismissing the application to recall the witnesses. The learned Counsel also submitted that the dismissal of other applications are due to reasons which had been specified supra and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be penalized. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic cell, Through its Officer in Charge, Delhi.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, the learned smt. K. Sesharajyam, the learned Public prosecutor had contended that the conduct of the petitioner is definitely blameworthy and it is because of his own default he was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned Public Prosecutor also had taken me through the contents of the petition and also the other records and had contended that because of the negligent attitude on the