Though this petition is listed today for admission, with the

consent of both the Counsel, the matter is taken up for final

disposal.

2.

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read

with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated

28.10.2021 passed in Spl.C.C.No.116/2018 by the Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge (FTSC-I), Bengaluru, rejecting the

application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 311 of

Cr.P.C., for recalling of PWs.1 and 2. Hence, the present revision

petition is filed before this Court.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

brought to the notice of this court that a fresh Vakalath was filed

with NOC on 01.10.2021. On the same day, an application was

filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for recalling of P.Ws.1 and 2.

The Trial Court having considered the earlier order dated

22.07.2021 and 13.08.2021 that an accused did not chose to

3

cross-examine the witnesses though earlier similar prayer was

allowed and witnesses were recalled with cost of Rs.500/- each

even the counsel for accused was directed not to seek any

adjournment to cross-examine the witnesses as under Section

33 of POCSO Act, victim cannot be recalled frequently. Hence,

rejected the application.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the petitioner is having a good case and a fair

opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to cross-examine

the witness. Hence, the revision petition may be allowed.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that

the Trial Court while rejecting the application assigned the

reasons since earlier also similar application was filed and

allowed and cost was also imposed and did not chosen to cross-

examine the witness. Apart from that, the Trial Court has taken

note of Section 33 of POCSO Act, wherein, the Trial Court says

that the victim cannot be recalled frequently. Hence, the order

does not suffer from any illegality.

4

6.

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, particularly, the order sheet,

which is produced before the Court clearly discloses that PWs.1

and 2 were examined before the Trial Court and witnesses were

not cross-examined and accused counsel took time once again

on 13.08.2021. The Trial Court also noted that on perusal of the

order sheet dated 22.07.2021, witnesses were present but the

counsel for accused submitted that his senior suffering from

COVID-19 and he is unable to attend the Court and hence case

was adjourned with a direction to cross examine the witnesses

without fail that too by imposing cost of Rs.500/-. Even on

25.11.2019, 26.02.2020, PWs.1 and 2 were present but the

counsel has not cross examined the witnesses. Even the learned

counsel did not chosen to cross-examine the witnesses and

noted Section 33 of the POCSO Act provides a bar for calling the

victim to the court frequently and Section 35 of the Act,

regarding time bound trial, prayer was rejected and taken as no

cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 vide order dated 13.08.2021.

Once again, an application is filed and the Trial Court taking note

of the order sheet dated 22.07.2021 and 13.08.2021 and also

5

imposing cost when the witnesses were not cross examined and

also considering Section 33 of the POCSO Act came to the

conclusion that the victim cannot be recalled frequently.

7.

Having considered the reasoning assigned by the

Trial Court, I do not find any force in the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner. The very contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner is that fresh Vakalath was filed

on 01.10.2021, the same cannot be a ground to recall the

witness when the statute clearly says that the victim cannot be

called before the Court frequently. However, taking into note of

no cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 and the petitioner is facing

the charges of an offence under Section 354A of IPC as well as

Section 8 of the