Mere desire to recall a witness after lapse of time without establishing necessity does not justify such recall.

COMMON ORDER

These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to quash two orders, both dated 26.03.2026, made in Crl.M.P.Nos.1260 & 1261 of

2025 in Spl.C.C.No7 of 2025.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1 The petitioners are accused facing trial in Spl.C.C.No7 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ranipet District, for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 & 477-A of IPC and Sections

13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2.2 The petitioners filed petitions under Sections 311 & 91 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.Nos.1260 & 1261 of 2025 respectively, seeking to recall P.W.20, direct the production of the documents mentioned in the petitions, and further cross-examine the witness regarding those documents. However, the trial court, vide orders both dated 26.03.2026, dismissed the said petitions. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come up with these petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.1260 & 1261 of 2025 seeking to recall P.W.20 for further cross-examination in respect of certain documents in his custody, in order to prove their innocence by exposing the fact that they have not colluded with the 3^rd accused in committing the abovesaid offences, as alleged by the prosecution. However, the trial court, without considering the fact that the same is necessary in order to arrive at a fair decision, had dismissed the said petitions, vide impugned orders, both dated 26.03.2026, which is not sustainable. He further submitted that if the petitioners are not given an opportunity to further cross-examine the aforesaid witness in respect of certain documents, they would be put to a great predicament. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay sufficient costs for recalling P.W.20 and also undertake to co-operate for the speedy disposal of the case. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned dismissal orders, both dated 26.03.2026.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial court, after careful consideration of the fact that the above witness has already been cross- examined in detail by the petitioners as early as on 22.02.2017 and that the petitions under Sections 311 & 91 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.Nos.1260 & 1261 of 2025 respectively, seeking to recall P.W.20 for further cross-examination in respect of certain documents in his custody, were filed by the petitioners after a lapse of about 9 years from the date of cross-examination of the above witness, that too, when the matter was posted for arguments, which is nothing but a tactic used by the petitioners-accused to delay the trial proceedings, had dismissed the said petitions, which cannot be said to be erroneous.

5. This Court gave its careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, it is a case arising out of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Initially, the final report was filed for the offences set out at paragraph no.2.1, supra in the year 2014. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ranipet District and re-numbered as Spl.C.C.No7 of 2025.

7. On a perusal of the materials available on record, particularly the impugned orders, it is seen that the prosecution has examined witness P.Ws.l to 36. Further, P.W.20, one James Rajan was examined in chief as early as on 22.02.2017 and on the very same day, he was cross-examined in detail by the petitioners.

8. In such circumstan