IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1422 OF 2010 Between: Vemula Veera Swamy … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. … RESPONDENT This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1422 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner/A1 seeks to question order dated 12.07.2010, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, in Crl.M.P.No.151 of 2010 in Sessions Case No.127 of 2007, dismissing application filed by A1 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. refusing to recall D.W.1 for further cross- examination. 2. In GODREJ PACIFIC TECH. LIMITED VS. COMPUTER JOINT INDIA LIMITED[1], the Supreme Court categorically held that recalling of the witness is within the discretion of the Court and it has to be exercised having regard to facts and circumstances of that particular case. The Supreme Court observed that the determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. 3. The petitioner/A1 is accused of offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302 read with 34 I.P.C. The victim/deceased is no other than mother-in-law of A1. When A1 cited his wife as defence witness, the lower Court permitted him to examine his wife as D.W.1. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that D.W.1 in cross-examination, accommodated the prosecution and turned hostile to the accused. Therefore, the lower Court treating D.W.1 as hostile to A1 permitted A1’s counsel to cross-examine D.W.1. That exercise was over. Subsequently, the petitioner has come up with the present petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the name of fairness. 4. The entire proceedings conducted by the lower Court are absolutely fair. In fact, A1 who cited D.W.1 as witness, filed memo subsequent to cross-examination of D.W.1 by the Additional Public Prosecutor stating that he intends to give up his own witness. It was unfair conduct on the part of A1 to seek permission to give up his own witness after she was examined in Court. The question of A1 being permitted to reexamine the witness does not arise because A2 had already cross-examined the witness. On consideration of the entire proceedings in the lower Court and material placed before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that it would be unfair if D.W.1 is recalled for further cross-examination of A1. Recalling of D.W.1 at this stage is not essential for just decision of the case. The lower Court rightly negatived the petitioner’s contentions. 5. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 10, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1422 OF 2010 August 10, 2010 KL [1] (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 108