IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1837 of 2009 Between: Panduga Narayana Reddy .. PETITIONER AND The State of A.P.,through Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, in Crl.M.P.No.318 of 2009 in S.C.No.178 of 2006, dated 30.07.2009. 2. The petitioner, who is A3, filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.318 of 2009 in S.C.No.178 of 2006 praying to recall P.Ws.2, 119 and 122. It appears that P.Ws.2 and 119 have been already recalled and examined. Therefore, now this revision is confined to the issue whether to recall P.W.122 or not. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that P.W.122 is the Chief Investigating Officer and that after completion of his evidence, some other Investigating Officers have been examined and after going through the evidence of other Investigating Officers, the petitioner/accused felt that P.W.122 has to be recalled and further cross-examined to elicit some important points. 4. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have dismissed the said petition on the ground that P.W.122 had already been cross- examined at length on almost all the aspects. However, the learned counsel for CBI did not dispute the fact that the other Investigating Officers have been examined subsequent to the examination of P.W.122. Normally, the Chief Investigating Officer should be examined as a last witness. It is also not in dispute that this Court and also the Honourable Apex Court have given specific directions for completion of trial in this case at an early date. The special Public Prosecutor for CBI filed a copy of the order of the Apex Court in a petition for special leave to appeal in Crl.M.P.No.344 of 2009 arising out of the order in Crl.M.P.No.7614 of 2008 passed by this Court (High Court of A.P.) dated 31.12.2008, wherein the Apex Court directed that the trial shall be completed positively, within a period of six months from the date of the said order. That order was passed on 17.07.2009. As per the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court, the trial has to be completed by 17.01.2010. It is also not in dispute that P.W.122 is readily available. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the further cross-examination of P.W.122 may not take more than one or two hours and that all the counsels appearing on behalf of the accused would cooperate and complete the cross-examination of P.W.122 on the same date. Under those circumstances, the further cross-examination of P.W.122 need not be differed to any other date. 4. As agreed by both the counsel, the following order has been passed; The trial Court shall fix the date and inform the Public Prosecutor to produce P.W.122 for further cross-examination on the date fixed by it. On such date, all the counsels appearing for all the accused shall complete their cross-examination. Even if any one of the accused fail to further cross examine P.W.122, the further cross by such accused shall be deemed as nil. 6. In view of the above discussion, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:26.11.2009 Note: 1.Issue CC by tomorrow 2. Office is directed to send a copy of this order in advance by fax to the Sessions Judge, Anantapur. (Bo) sj