THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.928 OF 2024

ORDER:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2024 in SC.Spl.No.765 of 2021 on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Case, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.3-State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that on 13.12.2023, the cross examination of PW.1 was closed and on 14.12.2023, the cross examination of PWs.2 and 3 was closed. As the defence counsel did not ask some more important questions to the said witnesses, which are very much crucial to establish the innocence of the revision petitioner/accused, an application vide Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2024 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C was filed to recall the witnesses before the trial Court on

05.01.2024.

4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.03.2024 dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner and unofficial respondent have compromised the matter and are living together. To that effect, a memo has been filed into the Registry vide USR No.87910 of 2024 enclosing Marriage Registration Certificate and Marriage Photo of the revision petitioner and unofficial respondent.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that he has no instructions that marriage was solemnized between the revision petitioner and unofficial respondent. Hence, seeks to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the orders passed in Pidika Sambaru Vs. State of Odisha and another, [2022 LawSuit(Ori)51] and also Godrej Pacific Tech Limited Vs. Computer Joint India Limited, [(2008) 11 SCC 108]

8. In view of the aforesaid submissions and orders (supra), this Court is of the opinion that there is no such delay in filing an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking to recall the witnesses. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of witnesses if they were recalled for further cross examination by the accused. Hence, the learned trial Court ought to have given a final opportunity to the revision petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and this matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court and. Further, learned trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the revision petitioner to cross examine PWs.1 to 3 by imposing costs and conditions as fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned trial Court is further directed to close the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

10. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

_____________________

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 06.01.2024 mmr