IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17691 of 2025 Date: 08.01.2026 Between:

Shaik Mujeeb ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana through P.S. Pahadishareef Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to recall the witness PW-1 for cross-examination in Crl.M.P.No.1174 of 2025 in S.C.Spl.No.171 of 2024 on the file of learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.P.Bala Naresh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW-1 was not cross-examined by the learned counsel, as on the said date of hearing, the counsel was unwell and therefore he could not appear before the Court. Consequently, when the accused was called upon to cross- examine PW-1, only a simple suggestion was put denying the commission of any offence by the accused. However, no material questions were put to witness to elicit the truth during cross-examination. It is further submitted that, if PW-1 is not recalled for cross-examination, serious prejudice would be caused to the rights of the accused and hence prayed to recall the witness.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offence alleged is a serious one and that, in terms of Section 35 of POCSO Act, it is mandatory to record the evidence of the victim within a period of 30 days from the date of taking cognizance. He further submitted that reasonable opportunity had already been given to the accused and his counsel. When the date of trial schedule was announced, it was in the knowledge of the accused and the counsel, but, still the counsel failed to appear on the relevant date. Having failed to avail the opportunity granted, the accused cannot now seek any redressal on this ground. It was further contended that the present plea is only a lame excuse to delay the proceedings, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The accused is facing trial under the provisions of POCSO Act in SC Spl.No.171 of 2024. When PW-1 was examined in the Court on 17.09.2025, the defence counsel failed to appear, and consequently, the cross-examination was conducted by the accused himself, when the Court declined to grant any adjournment. The reason stated for the absence of the defence counsel is that he was unwell. Keeping in view the purport of Section 35 of POCSO Act, the Trial Court has declined to grant any adjournment. However, the accused was permitted to cross-

examine and the following suggestion was recorded.

“…It is not true to suggest that accused (himself) did not commit any offence against me…”

Now, learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that, unless the victim is effectively cross-examined, the truth cannot be brought out and the accused would be deprived of a fair opportunity of defence. He further assured the Court that the cross-examination would be completed on a single date of hearing without seeking any further adjournments.

7. For the sake of reference, Section 35 of POCSO Act is extracted hereunder:-

(1) The evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days from the date of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court.

(2) The Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.

8. For the sake of reference, Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure is extracted hereunder:-

“..Any Court may, at any