HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No:1942 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 20.2.2009 in Crl.R.P.No.79 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, wherein the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the 2nd respondent-complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 2nd respondent and he is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.931 of 2002. During the course of trial, the 2nd respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one other witness was examined as P.W.2. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3036 of 2008 before the trial Court seeking permission to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further cross- examination for marking certain documents and for eliciting contradictions and omissions. In the petition, it is stated that when P.W.1 was being cross-examined, she wept in the Court and the cross- examining Counsel went into shock over the attitude of P.W.1 and in the meantime, the cross-examination was closed and the counsel for the accused could not put some questions about certain important aspects and also could not confront the witness with certain documents. Therefore, the petitioner sought an opportunity to further examine P.Ws.1 and 2. The trial Court by order dated 1.12.2008 allowed the said application on payment of costs, but with limited scope of further cross-examination to elicit omissions and contradictions but not beyond. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed Crl.R.P.No.79 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dismissed the said revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Vijayawada. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was on account of the conduct of P.W.1 that she was continuously weeping in the Court, the cross-examining counsel could not put certain questions as he too went into state of shock over the attitude of P.W.1 and an opportunity may be given to the petitioner-accused to further cross- examine P.Ws.1 and 2 not only to elicit the omissions and contradictions, but also to confront them with certain documents. 5. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant would submit that the petition was filed by the accused only as a part of dilatory tactics. 6. In the circumstances, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner-accused to further cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the interest of fair trial and the petitioner is also permitted to confront the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 with the documents besides eliciting any omissions or contradictions. It is however made clear that if the petitioner-accused failed to avail the opportunity on the date to be fixed by the trial Court, his right to further cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 stands forfeited. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is disposed of as stated above. Interim stay granted on 31.3.2009 is vacated. ________________________ Justice G.V. Seethapathy Date: 18th November, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No:1942 OF 2009 18.11.2010