HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6153, 6154 and 6173 of 2011 COMMON ORDER:- Since the parties in all these three petitions are same and, having regard to the controversy involved in these petitions, the learned counsel for petitioner in all these three petitions and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard in detail and all the three matters are taken up together for disposal by this common order at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner K.Ramchander in all these three petitions is A- 1 in C.C.No.2264 of 2009 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (trial court). He along with other accused in the case is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 341 and 506 of IPC. It is seen that eight (8) witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 8 have been examined for the prosecution but they were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1. 3. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1371 of 2011 for recall of P.Ws.1 to 3; Crl.M.P.No.1516 of 2011 for recall of P.Ws.4 and 5; and Crl.M.P.No.1876 of 2011 for recall of P.Ws.6 to 8. The prosecution opposed all the three petitions. The trial court, after considering the respective cases of the parties, has by its separate orders dated 06.06.2011 dismissed all the three petitions. 4. The petitioner filed these three petitions viz., Crl.P.Nos.6153, 6154 and 6173 of 2011 against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.Nos.1371, 1516 and 1876 of 2011 respectively. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that for various reasons his counsel could not cross-examine the witnesses and as the charges are serious in nature he ought to have been given one more opportunity by the trial court for recall of the said witnesses and to cross-examine them in the interests of justice. 6. The trial court in its separate orders held that the petitioner did not cross-examine the witnesses despite giving sufficient opportunity and he failed to make out a sufficient cause for recall of the witnesses and in that view of the matter it dismissed all the petitions. 7. The impugned orders of the trial court would show that admittedly the petitioner along with other accused in the case is facing trial for the offences relating to cheating, wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation. In the circumstances of this case and as there was no serious opposition from the prosecution and having regard to the interests of justice, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would not be defeated if the petitioner is given one more opportunity to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 8 by putting him to terms. 8. Accordingly, all these three petitions are allowed and the trial court shall now recall P.Ws.1 to 8 and fix up dates for their cross-examination having regard to the convenience of witnesses and parties and permit the petitioner to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 8. The petitioner shall not insist that he will cross-examine all the witnesses at a time and he shall proceed to cross-examine the witnesses as per the schedule fixed by the trial court. The petitioner shall bear expenses of P.Ws.1 to 8 in attending to court for the purpose of their cross-examination. The trial court shall then proceed to take further steps in the matter and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 26th July 2011 CVRK