The importance of allowing the trial Court to independently and expeditiously decide petitions filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. without being influenced by any observations made by the court.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who is P.W.31 in S.C.No.1 of 2021, 2021 seeking to direct the learned Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As, Vijayawada (for short, "the trial Court") Court"), to receive the recall and reopen petitions which are to be presented by the petitioner under Sec. 311 31 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.1 of 2021, without refusing the same.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner's father was killed brutally on 15/3/2014. Based on the same, the Kurnool III Town Police registered a case in Crime No.119 of 2014, later after completion of the investigation, the Police filed a final report and the trial Court took cognizance in S.C.No.1 of 2021, and the evidence on both sides is closed, posted for arguments. The petitioner has received a voice call from an unknown number. Considering the evidentiary value of the voice call record, as it is very much necessary to arrive at a just decision, in petitioner's father's murder case, and also being P.W.31, in the said case, she herself in-person appeared on several adjournments and presented recall and reopen petitions under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., but the learned Special Court refused to receive both petitions, stating that the petition herein has no locus standi to file the said petitions and only the learned Public Prosecutor should file it. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri E. Uma Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein filed two petitions under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court in S.C.No.1 of 2021 seeking to reopen the case by recalling P.W.31 for the purpose of filing of conversation recording transmitted in Pen Drive.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the direction given by this Court, learned Counsel assisting the Public Prosecutor by name Kotari Subrahmanyam has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, he contends that his client's daughter, who is L.W.3 (P.W.31), who is also the daughter of the deceased approached him, bringing the voice call record of her mobile, which was received by her from an unknown number and asked him to file a recall petition under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner herein along with Kotari Subrahmanyam have presented the recall petition under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., along with voice call record with Sec. 65-B Certificate before the trial Court in S.C.No.1 of 2021 on 31/1/2024, 5/2/2024 in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel and the learned Judge has openly stated that the petitioner is not maintainable, as the L.W.3 has no locus standi to file a petition and it is only the Public Prosecutor who has to file.

6. On the other hand, a counter filed on behalf of respondent No.5 contending that this revision petition is not maintainable and further contending that the petitioner is also casting aspersions on the Presiding Officer of the trial Court and also on the Additional Public Prosecutor that he refused to accept the request of the petitioner to file Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., petitions.

7. The petitioner herein has placed a copy of the recall petition and a copy of the reopen petition. The contentions raised by the petitioner herein have been disputed by the respondent in the counter-filed.

8. It is submitted on behalf of both sides that the matter in S.C.No.1 of 2021 stands posted tomorrow for Judgment. As seen from the record, the main grievance of the petitioner is that recall and reopen petitions were not received by the learned Trial Judge. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that those petitions are not maintainable.

9. At this stage,