COMMON ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 14.07.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.691 of 2022 in C.C. No.170 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram.

2. A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By way of its its Order dated 24.02.2022 in Criminal Petition No.95 of 2022 filed by the petitioner, this Court disposed of the said Criminal Petition directing the Special Judge to complete trial within a period of four months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.691 of 2022 in the said C.C. seeking adjournment stating that examination of all the witnesses including the Investigating Officer, in-chief is necessary for cross-examining all the witnesses at once by the defence counsel, since the evidence in nature of all witnesses are co-existence with each other and connecting right from trap to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, and in the circumstances, contents of cross-examination of P.W.1 would be known to the other witnesses and that the petitioner would be ready for cross-examination of all the witnesses at once, so that he would get a fair chance of cross-examination for the purpose of impeaching the demeanour of the witnesses. Vide the impugned order dated 14.07.2022, the learned Special Judge dismissed the Crl.M.P. on the ground that in view of the directions given by this court, at the instance of the petitioner, witness was present on receipt of summons and as the witnesses9 evidence would be lengthy, summons to one witness only was issued intially and for rest of the witnesses, schedule can be issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is desirable that all the witnesses have to be examined in-chief and thereafter the petitioner intends to cross-examine them. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to proceed, in case if the Hon9ble Court gives a schedule in respect of examination of P.W.1 to the Investigating Officer at a stretch. He relied on a judgment of the Delhi High court dated 03.07.2017 in WP (Crl.) No.1350 of 2017 in Vijaya Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).

4. On the contrary, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent, opposing the petition. It is contended that the revision is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner intended to cross-examine all the witnesses after their chief-examination, which is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the CrPC. He further submitted that trial has commenced and P.W.1 was examined on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022, but the petitioner/accused officer has not availed opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and therefore the Special Judge reported cross-examination of P.W.1 as 8nil9. Again, the case was posted to 29.07.2022 and on that day, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and cross-

examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 was reported as Nil. Thereafter, the case was posted on 17.08.2022. On that day, P.W.4 was examined and as far as cross- examination is concerned, it is reported as 8nil9. The petitioner/accused officer failed to cross-examine all the witnesses and thereafter, the matter is posted to

25.08.2022.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. In the subject C.C., so far, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined in-chief by the Court below. In respect of all the witnesses, petitioner/ accused officer did not choose to cross-examine them for the reasons best known to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused officer relied on a judgment dealing with the provisions under Sections 231 (2) and 242 (3) CrPC, but surprisingly, filed the petition before the Special Judge under Section 309 CrPC for adjournment of the case.

7. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Vijaya Kumar v. State (Govt.

of NCT of Delhi) case (supra), it has been held thus:

<42. Against the above backdrop, in the