HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1351 OF 2010 DATE:03.08.2010 Between: Pidathala Satyam Babu …… Petitioner. And: The State of AP., rep. by PP, High Court of AP …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1351 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The accused seeks to file this revision petition against order dated 06.07.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in Criminal MP No.321 of 2010 in S.C.No.34 of 2009 by which the lower court dismissed the petition filed by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C refusing to recall P.Ws.9 to 11, 14, 18 to 25, 28 to 34 for cross examination. The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He has been in custody. Trial of the case was taken up by the lower court and it was completed. The Additional Public Prosecutor states that examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also completed. At that stage, the accused filed the present petition. 2. There is previous history for the proceedings in this case. In spite of giving directions by this Court previously, the accused and the defence counsel in the lower court did not cooperate with the lower court for proceeding with trial and refused to cross-examine the witnesses. Similar petition was filed previously in Criminal MPNo.1058 of 2009 for the self same relief contained in the present petition. The lower court allowed the said petition subject to deposit of Rs.5,700/- towards travelling expenses of 19 witnesses excluding P.Ws.26 and 27. As against the said order, the accused filed Criminal Petition No.2391 of 2010 in this Court. This Court by order dated 12.03.2010 partly allowed the said criminal petition directing the lower court not to insist on costs of Rs.5,700/- imposed on the accused. In pursuance of the said order of this Court, the above bunch of witness were called for second time for cross-examination. In spite of it, the accused and the defence counsel did not go on with cross-examination of those witnesses. Therefore, their evidence was closed by the lower court. For the second time, the accused filed similar petition now for recalling the above witnesses for cross-examination. Already the witnesses came to the court on two occasions; and on both the occasions the accused and his counsel in the lower court did not proceed with their cross-examination. They have just made a mockery of trial in the lower court. Trial of a murder case is not a child’s play. Some seriousness has to be attached by all the persons concerned during the trial. When the accused and his counsel did not proceed with cross-examination in spite of recalling the above witnesses, the said conduct is proof positive of lack of bonafides on the part of the accused and his counsel in the lower court. For reasons better known to him, the accused is resorting to file similar petitions time and again. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to call the above witness for the third time. The petition in the lower court as well as this revision petition lack bonafides as well as merits. 3. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:03.08.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1351 OF 2010 Date:03.08.2010 Gk.