THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1281 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1266 of 2024 in C.C.No.13 of 2007 by the learned I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused No.2 filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PWs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 for cross-examination. He contended that due to continuous health problems and his parents’ illness with cancer, his mind was not active and he could not give proper instructions to his counsel. As a result, his earlier counsel reported “Nil” cross-examination. He submitted that non-cross-examination was neither willful nor deliberate and prayed that recalling was necessary to avoid irreparable loss. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor before the trial Court opposed the petition, stating that the case was registered by CBI in 2004 involving wrongful loss of Rs.490 lakhs to Corporation Bank and charge-sheet was filed against 12 accused. He argued that the present application was only a delaying tactic, since the petitioner already had ample opportunities to cross-examine witnesses at different stages. The plea of ill health was not supported by any medical proof, and no new facts were disclosed for recalling witnesses. After hearing both sides, vide order dated 06.12.2024, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the case pertains to the year 2007, witnesses were examined long ago i.e., between 2011– 2017, and many of them were already recalled earlier. The accused was present during examinations and even reported “Nil” cross-examination himself. No medical documents were filed to justify the plea of ill-health. The trial Court further held that recalling witnesses after 7–8 years would waste time, harass witnesses, and defeat the ends of justice. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case was filed.

3. Heard Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Srinivas Kapadiya, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial Court was not in consonance with law or facts and that the delay in trial was mainly due to the prosecution, which took several years even to complete the chief examination of witnesses like PW-2 and PW-8, and hence the finding that the petitioner intended to keep the proceedings alive was erroneous. He further submitted that no accused would deliberately wish to prolong prosecution and suffer for decades, and therefore the observationof the trial Court about the intention of the petitioner was perverse and that the reasoning of the Court that litigants seek to take advantage of non-availability of witnesses was illogical, and instead the Court could have recalled the witnesses with a safeguard that no advantage would be given if witnesses could not be secured.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding that witnesses might feel harassed by repeated recall was unsustainable in the present case, since the witnesses were bank officials and borrowers in a financial fraud case, not disinterested individuals. He further contended that Section 311 Cr.P.C. vested wide discretion in the Court to ensure that justice was not defeated by incomplete or inconclusive evidence, and the trial Court failed to exercise that discretion in a fair manner. He emphasized that the object of Section 311 was to discover the truth and render a just decision, and that principles of fair play required allowing correction of inadvertent errors. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal revision case.

6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor filed counter affidavit stating that the trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion under Sect