IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2921 of 2010 Between: Kapilavai Shiva …Petitioner AND State of A.P. …Respondent The Court made the following: ' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2921 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is ﬁled by the petitioner challenging the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.16 of 2010 dated 17.03.2010 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), at Mahabubnagar. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent. This Court had carefully gone through the order under challenge. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court had formulated the points for consideration at paragraph 4 of the order and recorded reasons, which reads as hereunder. “As seen from the orders of the lower Court, P.W.1 to P.W.6 and P.W.7 to P.W.14 were examined by the prosecution as well as Defense on 27.07.2009 to 29.07.2009. The lower Court made an observation that all the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length. The evidence on behalf of prosecution was closed on 29.07.2009 and the matter was posted for 313 Cr.P.C. examination on 05.10.2009 and 09.10.2009, but the accused was absent and the petition was ﬁled to recall the witness on 21.10.2009. The accused was present and the matter was adjourned to 03.11.2009. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the matter was posted for defense arguments on 10.11.2009 and on 10.11.2009, the petitioner ﬁled the present petition stating that he wanted to elicit some material points, but the lower Court dismissed the petition. The power of recalling the witnesses must be exercised in a very careful manner, but not in routine manner. In this case, the lower Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 by 29.07.2009. After closure of the evidence, the petitioner remained absent for 313 Cr.P.C. examination continuously and later on 03.11.2009, he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the matter was posted to 10.11.2009 and petitioner ﬁled the present petition without mentioning on what aspects, he wants to cross examine all the witnesses. The learned counsel for revision petitioner argued that he wanted to elicit some material points in the cross examination. He also stated that if the material aspects will be mentioned in the petition, the prosecution will get notice of the defense taken by the petitioner. As seen from the stage on which the petition was ﬁled by the petitioner before the lower Court, it appears to be an afterthought. It is not his case that he wanted to recall either one or two witnesses, but he wanted to cross examine all the prosecution witnesses. Since after closure of the prosecution evidence, as the petitioner remained absent till for 2 or 3 adjournments for 313 Cr.P.C. examination and since he ﬁled the present petition at the stage of defense evidence, it appears that he wanted to delay the proceedings. Hence, I ﬁnd no reason to interfere with the order of lower Court.” In the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J March 26, 2010 Bvv