IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2391 of 2010 Between: Pidathala Satyambabu …Petitioner AND State rep by the P.P. High Court of A.P. …Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2391 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.34 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada and was charged for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. The case of prosecution, as stated in the petition, is that the petitioner ﬁled a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the Court below to recall the witnesses i.e. P.Ws.9 to 11, 14, 18 to 25 and 28 to 34 on the ground that no opportunity was given to him for cross-examination which will cause prejudice to him. The learned Judge of the Court below, by order dated 11.12.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.1058 of 2009 in S.C.No.34 of 2009, allowed the petition, imposing a condition on the petitioner to deposit of Rs.5,700/- towards travelling expenses of the witnesses and the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within three days from the date of order, failing which, the petition stands dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner has been in jail ever since his arrest and as his father died, he could not deposit the amount within time. Then the petitioner ﬁled a petition through jail on 14.12.2009 stating that he has no capacity to pay the cost. Then the learned Judge dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to comply the conditional order dated 11.12.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.1058 of 2009 in S.C.No.34 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada. Aggrieved by the said order, present Criminal Petition is filed. It is further stated that the petitioner is in jail ever since his arrest, his mother is seriously ill and his father died. He could not deposit the amount. It is also averred that it is the fundamental right of the accused to cross-examine the witness, but the Court below recorded the cross-examination as nil. It is further averred that there is no intention on their part not to cross-examine the witnesses and it will cause prejudice to the defense and if the Court below will not recall the witnesses for cross-examination of P.Ws.9 to 11, 14, 18 to 25 and 28 to 34, the petitioner will suﬀer irreparable loss and injury. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner prays this Court to issue suitable directions to recall the witnesses i.e. P.Ws.9 to 11, 14, 18 to 25 and 28 to 34 without insisting the cost of Rs.5,700/- by suspending the order dated 14.12.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.1058 of 2009 in S.C.No.34 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the relief, which is sought for by the petitioner in this Criminal Petition, be granted. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada, to recall the witnesses i.e. P.Ws.9 to 11, 14, 18 to 25 and 28 to 34, without insisting on cost of Rs.5,700/- imposed on the petitioner, and to dispose of the case at an early date. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ____________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J March 12, 2010 Bvv