Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 735 (AP)

Dibbada Sathiraju v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-11-25

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - The Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the docket order dated 17.12.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5390 of 2019 in C.C.No.1551 of 2018 by learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada wherein the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling PW1 was allowed by imposing onerous conditions. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 21.10.2019 the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1 and on that date, time was requested as the petitioner could not give instructions to his counsel for cross-examination of PW1. The Court below called and closed cross-examination of PW1 and posted the matter for further evidence of respondent No.2/complainant. At that point of time the petitioner filed an application to recall PW1 for cross-examination as he has strong evidence for proving his case. The same was allowed by imposing onerous condition of paying interim compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as directed by the Court on 04.01.2019. Aggrieved by the same the present revision case is filed. 3. Heard Sri P.V.S.A.Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state. The petitioner has filed proof of service vide U.S.R.No.27642 of 2020 wherein it reflects that the notice was served on respondent No.2 on 26.08.2020 and inspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while allowing the recall petition the Court below has imposed onerous condition to deposit interim compensation of Rs.30,000/- which is beyond the purport of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that even the application was not filed at a belated stage. The cross-examination of PW1 was closed on 21.10.2019 and the matter was posted for further evidence of respondent No.2. Immediately on 14.11.2019 the petitioner has filed the petition for recalling PW1. 5. A perusal of the record shows that though the application was filed immediately after the closure of cross-examination of PW1 the Court below has allowed the said application by imposing condition to pay the interim compensation of Rs.30,000/- in compliance of the order dated 04.01.2019. 6. Immediately on 14.11.2019 the petitioner has filed the petition for recalling PW1. 5. A perusal of the record shows that though the application was filed immediately after the closure of cross-examination of PW1 the Court below has allowed the said application by imposing condition to pay the interim compensation of Rs.30,000/- in compliance of the order dated 04.01.2019. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as cross-examination of PW1 is essential to bring out true facts of the case and since the petition was filed immediately by next date of hearing, in the interest of justice the impugned order of the Court below is liable to be set aside on condition. 7. Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the docket order dated 17.12.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5390 of 2019 in C.C.No.1551 of 2018 by learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. However, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.