IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Tuesday, July 26, 2011. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 5640 of 2011 Between: Mandadi Yugandhara Reddy …Petitioner and The State of AP …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 5640 of 2011 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 102 of 2006 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, Anantapur District. The point that is raised for consideration in this petition is - whether PW-3, Sajjappa can be permitted to be recalled by the petitioner (accused) for further cross-examination on his behalf. 3. The offence alleged is one under section 304-A IPC and the petitioner is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle. In the petition filed before the learned Magistrate for recall of PW-3 it is stated that his Advocate could not cross-examine the witness earlier in detail as he was not having full information and therefore the witness should be recalled to put him some important questions. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the deposition of PW-3 and it shows that this witness was already cross examined by the petitioner’s counsel by name Sri YLN. The learned Magistrate considered this aspect and observed that the witness was cross-examined in all respects. In the course of his arguments today Sri P. Ravi Kiran pointed out that the witness has to be cross examined with reference to his S. 161 Cr.P.C. statement as there are some contradictions. A perusal of the cross examination of the witness would show that he was cross examined with reference to his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement also and a contradiction was also got marked as 2Ex D-1. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was right in dismissing the petition for recall of PW-3. It should also be noted that the order rejecting the application for recall of a witness is in the nature of an interlocutory order and no revision is maintainable as against it and therefore the petitioner has come up with this quash petition. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the matter does not call for interference by this court. 4. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. July 26, 2011. *BVS