IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4477 OF 2009 Between: Dasari Vanemma. ..... PETITIONER. AND The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. ..... RESPONDENT. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the order in Crl. M.P. No.85 of 2009 dated 02-06-2009 in S.C. No.228 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Nellore. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. RAJESHWAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent, the Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4477 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri N. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public prosecutor for the sole respondent. The Criminal petition has been filed challenging the Order of the Judge, Family Court in Full Additional Charge of the court of III Additional District Judge, Nellore, in Crl. M.P. No.85 of 2009 in S.C. No.228 of 2006 dated 02-06-2009. The petitioner herein who is the accused in S.C. No.228 of 2006 filed the petition to further cross-examine PWs 1 and 2 on the ground that, some vital aspects of the case have to be confronted to PWs 1 and 2. The learned Judge considered that, sufficient opportunity was already given to the petitioner and his counsel to cross-examine the witnesses and also observed that PWs 1 and 2 were cross- examined at length involving all the aspects and therefore dismissed the petition. The petitioner contends that the accused and the deceased lived in the same house but, not in separate houses as alleged by the prosecution and there are certain vital aspects which came to light during the course of trial, which have to be confronted to PWs 1 and 2. The denial of an opportunity for the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner is his contention. The accused in a Criminal case shall be presumed to be innocent till the contrary is proved and the law heavily leans in favour of the accused to provide every opportunity to prove his innocence. Even if the accused was not diligent enough in exhaustively cross-examining PWs 1 and 2, when given an opportunity earlier, denying his request only on the ground of their earlier cross-examination may not serve the ends of justice. The accused also should not be compelled in advance to disclose what are the details of the vital aspects for which he wishes to cross- examine PWs 1 and 2 further, as such advance disclosure may prejudice his defence or blunt the efficacy of further cross- examination. Any inconvenience caused to the prosecution can be compensated and any absence of diligence for the accused can be sufficiently penalised by imposing appropriate terms while giving such opportunity to recall PWs 1 and 2. Therefore, the Order in Crl. M.P. No.85 of 2009 in S.C. No.228 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Nellore, dated 02-06-2009 is set aside and the said petition will be allowed on payment of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs to the District Legal Services Authority, Nellore, within one week after the receipt of the order of this Court herein by the Trial court; in default of payment of such costs, within such time, the said petition shall stand dismissed. The Criminal petition is ordered accordingly. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-08-2009. Dsh.