IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6279 OF 2011 Between: Madduluri Koteswar Rao …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6279 OF 2011 ORDER: This petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2010 in Crl.R.P.No.31 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyderabad, wherein the said revision filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, confirming the order dated 15.07.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2010 in S.C.No.611 of 2009, on the file of the V-Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner for re-call of P.W.10 was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC in S.C.No.611 of 2009. It is stated that on 19.05.2010, the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem, was examined as P.W.10 and the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused cross- examined P.W.11, but the Court reported no cross- examination of P.W.10. The same was accordingly recorded by the trial Court. Subsequently, Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2010 was filed for re-call of P.W.10 for cross- examination. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court and on revision the same was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by mistake and inadvertence, the cross-examination for P.W.10 was reported as nil and that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be given to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine P.W.10, a Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination. 5. In the circumstances, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the fact that P.W.10 is a material witness, who conducted post-mortem, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine P.W.10. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to give an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.10 by re-calling the said witness on a date to be fixed by the trial Court and in the event of the petitioner/accused not availing the said opportunity, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed further in the matter. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th July, 2011 Lrkm.