HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:322 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order, dated 7.10.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2010 in S.C.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The petitioners herein are A1, A4 to A6 and they are facing trial in Sessions Case No.63 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 of IPC, Sections 3,4 & 6 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 25(1B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act. After examination of P.Ws.1 to 4, the petitioners-accused filed Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2010 stating that during the course of cross- examination of the said witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4, they could not cross-examine them with regard to some contradictions and as such, they may be permitted to recall P.Ws.1 to 4 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The said application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor contending that it is nothing but a frivolous petition to fill up lacunae and mistakes committed by the petitioners-accused. Further, it was also contended that even if the application is allowed the witnesses i.e., P.Ws 1 to 4 may not be subjected to cross-examination on all aspects and permission may be granted only with regard to specific aspects. The trial Court having considered the submissions, by its order dated 7.10.2010 allowed the said application in part and permitted to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the photos already shown for identification purposes and to recall P.Ws. 2 and 4 for the purpose of drawing attention to previous statements made by them in C.F.R. No.3722 of 2008 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathikonda. The same is questioned in this revision contending that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have permitted the petitioners i.e., A1, A4 to A6 to recall P.Ws.1 to 4 for the purpose of further cross- examination. Heard. Perused the material available on record. It appears that there are some contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and apparently, the petitioners-accused could not get the said contradictions marked during the course of cross-examination of P.Ws 1 to 4. In an offence of this nature, the contradictions play a vital role. May be, there are lapses on the part of the petitioners-accused in not cross-examining those witnesses at the time when they were tendered for cross-examination, but on that ground it cannot be said that the petitioners-accused shall not be given a further opportunity. Instead of allowing the said application in part, the Court below ought to have allowed the said petition in toto and permitted the petitioners to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 4 with regard to the said contradictions and omissions. Under the above circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of directing the Court below to recall P.Ws.1 to 4 so as to enable the petitioners-accused to cross-examine them only with regard to the contradictions and omissions, if any. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. __________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 22.3.2011 Note: CC in three days B/O Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:322 OF 2011 22.3.2011