THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15865 of 2024

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the common order dated 28.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1948, 1949 and 1950 of 2024 in C.C.NI.No.3622 of 2022 by the learned VI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused filed three petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of his evidence at the stage of final arguments to mark certain additional documents, including Xerox copies of a Provisional Life Membership Certificate dated 13.07.2013, a banner closing certificate, a complaint to the Commissioner of Police dated 10.09.2018, and a circular dated 18.01.2007. The petitioner/accused contended that these documents were inadvertently omitted during his earlier examination as DW1. On the other hand, the complainant, an 80-year-old individual, strongly opposed the petitions, stating that they were filed with a mischievous intent to delay the proceedings and cause harassment, and that such petitions were not maintainable in law, particularly at the stage of arguments. It was submitted that the documents sought to be marked were either irrelevant or inadmissible and would not contribute to the just decision of the case. Upon hearing both sides and considering the legal position, the trial court dismissed the petitions observing that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and must be exercised with great caution and only for strong and valid reasons. It is further held that the documents were not essential to the just decision of the case, were mostly secondary in nature, and that the delay in filing the petitions was unexplained. The trial Court further noted that allowing the petitions at this stage would amount to filling up lacunae in the defence and would prejudice the complainant. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri A.P. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed these applications to recall witnesses and mark certain crucial documents which were not available earlier during defence evidence. These documents are necessary for a fair adjudication of the case and that the trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s applications solely on the ground that the case was at the stage of arguments. However, the same Court allowed a similar application filed later by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., relying on judgments which were in fact cited earlier by the petitioner. This shows unequal treatment and amounts to judicial inconsistency.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant had also recalled defence witnesses earlier, and cross-examination brought out facts that made it necessary for the petitioner to file and mark additional documents and that the trial Court wrongly held that the petitioner’s applications were an attempt to fill lacunae, without properly examining the relevance and admissibility of the documents filed. He further contended that the trial Court wrongly assumed that the documents were only Xerox copies, though the petitioner had filed originals as well. Section 311 Cr.P.C.

permits recalling of witnesses at any stage to ensure a just decision. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the common order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the documents the petitioner intended to mark are not original but is photocopies, and that these documents are not relevant for the adjudication of the matter before the trial Court. Therefore, there