HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8188 AND 8189 OF 2008 DATE: 25-11-2011 BETWEEN: G. Nagesh - - - Petitioner/ Accused Officer. AND The State of A.P., A.C.B. Warangal Range, Warangal, Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8188 AND 8189 OF 2008 DATE:25-11-2011 COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Petition No.8188 is ﬁled by the Petitioner/Accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside order dated 05-12-2008, passed in Crl.M.P. No.1323 of 2008 in Calender Case No.5 of 2004, registered for oﬀence punishable under section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For short, ‘The Act’) pending on the ﬁle of the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (For short, ‘The learned Special Judge’) and consequently direct the trial Court to recall PW.5 for his cross-examination and the Criminal Petition No.8189 of 2008 is ﬁled seeking to set aside order dated 05-12-2008 in Crl.M.P. No.1322 of 2008 in the same Calender Case and consequently direct the trial Court to reopen the matter for the examination of a listed witness i.e. DW.3 (therein) on his behalf. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Accused, the Respondent is the Complainant in C.C. No.5 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused that in the said C.C. No.5 of 2004 after the examination of 12 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 12 on behalf of the prosecution, the accused ﬁled one of the petitions to recall PW.5 and cross- examine him with reference to Ex.D-1 marked in the case and the Accused ﬁled a list of three defence witnesses and got examined only DWs.1 and 2 on his behalf on 28-11-2008 and sought time for examining the 3rd witness on his behalf, but the learned Special Judge, closed his evidence, refusing to grant time to examine that listed witness, and posted the case for defence arguments on 03-12-2008 and hence he ﬁled the other application whereas both the Petitions were dismissed and for administering proper justice both the petitions are to be allowed and the Court below failed to appreciate the matter, filed the present two Criminal Petitions. 4. It is seen from the record that whereas the Accused Oﬃcer ﬁled Crl.M.P. No.1323 of 2008 seeking to recall PW.5 and cross-examine him with reference to Ex.D-1 Complaint in the case and also ﬁled Crl.M.P.No.1322 of 2008 seeking to reopen the matter to examine the listed witness i.e. DW.3 on his behalf, the learned Special Judge, dismissed both the applications on the ground that PW.5 got nothing to do with Ex.D-1 for the purpose of confronting him with reference to the contents therein and those two petitions were ﬁled only to procrastinate the matter for some more time and in spite of giving about 20 adjournments, the Accused failed to produce any witnesses on his behalf. In fact in the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.1323 of 2008 the learned Special Judge failed to discuss about the question of examination of other defence witness or witnesses on behalf of the Accused, even though ultimately it is observed that both the Petitioners are devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Therefore, it is to be deemed that no order is passed in Crl.M.P. No.1323 of 2008. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are suﬃcient grounds to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P. No.1323 and 1322 of 2008 in that C.C. No.5 of 2004 on 05-12-2008? 6. There is no dispute that PW.5 was not the author of Ex.D-1 nor he signed on it in any capacity. Therefore, the question of recalling PW.5 and re-examining him with reference to the contents of the document does not arise at all. The contents of the document can be taken into consideration if otherwise they are admissible. Further, so far as the other petition is concerned as it is observed earlier that in fact the plea taken therein was not considered by the trial Court, and it is to be deemed that no order was passed therein as such the trial Court has to consider the petition afresh and dispose of the matter as early as possible. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petition No.8189 of 2008 is dismissed and Criminal Petition No.8188 of 2008 is closed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 25-11-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8188 AND 8189 OF 2008 November, 25, 2011 DSH