IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERAAD Tuesday, the 21th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 4740 of 2011 Between: Kota Joji …Petitioner and The State of AP …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 4740 of 2011 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The only question that is raised in this quash petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. is whether the order dated:17.3.2011 of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of PWs 1 and 2 for further cross examination is correct or not. 3. The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No. 84 of 2010 on the file of the trial court. The offences alleged are those punishable under sections 354, 341 and 506 IPC. The petitioner is stated to be a Police constable. It is seen that PW-1 is the victim and PW-2 is her mother. The order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that both these witnesses have already been cross-examined at length and further the petitioner filed the present application following a change in his counsel. Sri Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner says that subsequently several lapses were noticed in the cross examination of PWs 1 and 2 and therefore they should be recalled. 4. It should be noted that in paragraph-4 of the petition filed before the trial court for recall of the witnesses, it is stated that further cross examination has become necessary for recording location of the scene of offence and personal background of the witnesses. It may be noted that these are two fundamental requirements and the petitioner being a police constable could have sufficiently instructed his counsel at the very threshold. It is also seen that this petition has been filed when the matter was at the stage of S. 313 Cr.P.C. Examination. It is not known what the petitioner was doing till the matter reached the stage of S. 313 Cr.P.C. Examination. In the above circumstances, the trial court cannot be said to be incorrect in rejecting the request of the petitioner. 5. Sri Suresh Reddy at this stage requests that the petitioner may be given one more opportunity. But having regard to the circumstances and the reasons given by the trial court, I regret that I am unable to agree with this request of Sri Suresh Reddy. Accordingly I find no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court and accordingly this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 21, 2011. *BVS