THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.249 of 2025

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.151 of 2020 by the learned Principal District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the present Revision Case is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 - State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present revision is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.151 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The said appeal arose out of the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri in C.C.No.61 of 2017. The learned trial court, after observing that despite repeated adjournments (not less than 30 times, as per computer extract) and inspite of sufficient opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the presence of LWs.1 to 5, closed the prosecution evidence. The trial court further observed that even after granting 1½ years' time, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence, nor was recourse taken under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of witnesses. In the absence of any incriminating evidence on record, the trial court had rightly closed the prosecution evidence and proceeded accordingly.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant preferred Crl.A.No.151 of 2020. The learned Appellate Court, however, held that the trial court ought to have taken appropriate steps for securing the presence of witnesses by exercising powers under law, including Section 87 of Cr.P.C. and instead of doing so, improperly closed the prosecution evidence. The Appellate Court further found that even after re-opening evidence in the month of February, 2018, and re-calling LWs.1 to 3, no stringent steps were taken by the trial court for their presence. On that basis, the Appellate Court had set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the matter back for fresh disposal on merits by securing the witnesses. He further contends that such a remand is perverse, not in accordance with law, and amounts to abuse of process of law, since repeated opportunities had already been granted to the prosecution, which failed to produce its witnesses.

5. On the other land, learned counsel for un-official respondent submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner on certain records is misplaced and not relevant to the case on hand, as the same relates to S.C.No.308 of 2016. It is further submitted that in the absence of resort to coercive process under Section 87 of Cr.P.C., the trial court's closure of prosecution evidence was not justified. The Appellate Court, therefore, rightly remanded the matter, and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the trial proceeds on merits after securing witnesses.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submits that the trial court, despite allowing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., failed to take effective steps for securing witnesses and only adjourned the matter. In such circumstances, the Appellate Court rightly directed the trial court to proceed afresh by securing witnesses in accordance with law.

7. Having heard the submission and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellate Court has rightly set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal on merits. The trial court, while granting repeated adjournments, failed to exercise its powers under Section 87 of Cr.P.C. and other enabling provisions to secure the presence of listed witnesses. Therefore, no illegality or perversity is made out in the impugned order.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The learned trial court is directed to take all necessary steps, including recourse to Section 87 of Cr.P.C. to secure the presence of witnesses, conduct proceedings in a