The duty of the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision, and the need to exercise the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C judiciously to meet the ends of justice.

ORDER :

1. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking to quash the Order dated 04.06.2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No.158 of 2014 in C.C.No.46 of 2013, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for the trial of ACB Cases, Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool, filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C to reopen the case and recall L.W.13 (DSP, ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati) and L.W.14(Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati).

2. Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB representing the petitioner/State and Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/accused officer.

3. The brief facts of this petition are that the respondent/accused officer is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool. Around the time, L.W.13 - Trap Laying Officer and L.W.14-Inspector of Police, who assisted L.W.13 in the trap proceedings, who are the crucial witnesses could not be produced before the Court of law on the ground that they were engaged in election bandobast duties for Municipal, ZPTC/MPTC and General Elections, 2014 and their evidence stood closed. On that, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking the trial Court to reopen the matter and recall the above witnesses (L.W.13 and L.W.14) for their examination, as their evidence is very much essential for the case of this nature. But, the learned Trial Court without appreciating the matter in a proper perspective went wrong and came to a conclusion that there are no justifiable grounds to recall those witnesses for examination and the application filed thus, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Order of Dismissal, the present quash petition is filed.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB submits that the Order passed by the learned Special Judge for ACB Cases, Kurnool contains no cogent reasons and is not in accordance with law and the same warrants interference of this Court. Further, he would submit that on the date of their examination, L.Ws.13 and 14 could not attend the Court, as they were attending bandobast duties for the Elections in Municipalities ZPTC/MPTC. In spite of sending radio messages by the witnesses, seeking to adjourn the matter, the learned trial Judge was not convinced and thereby, closed their evidence. He would further submit that an application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking the trial Court to reopen the matter and recall those witnesses. The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that there were no justifiable grounds to recall those witnesses for examination and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court and non-affording of opportunity to the prosecution to produce the evidence of those witnesses, therefore, is unjustifiable. Further, he would submit that the object underlying Section 311 Cr.P.C was to prevent failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of witnesses and in the present case, L.Ws.13 and 14, who are DSP/Trap Laying Officer and Inspector of Police, who assisted L.W.13 are very much crucial witnesses, and without examining them, disposing of the case is not at all a fair trial. Further argued that the object of Section 311 of Cr.P.C simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the Order under challenge is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused officer would submit that, in fact, the prosecution witnesses (L.Ws.13 and 14) were not present on several dates though the trial Court accommodated them to give their evidence, and they have not availed the opportunity for