THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2226 of 2010 Date:02nd December, 2010 Between: K.S.S.Vara Prasad …Petitioner and 1. The State rep. by its P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2226 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 22.11.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6949 of 2010 in C.C.No.644 of 2009 on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.644 of 2009. The complainant filed his chief affidavit on 05.05.2010. The matter underwent several adjournments for cross-examination of PW.1. Ultimately the cross-examination of PW.1 came to be closed. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.6183 of 2010 to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination and the same was allowed and PW.1 was subjected to cross- examination. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.6949 of 2010 on 15.09.2010 to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. The respondent/complainant filed counter resisting the application. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 22.11.2010. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that PW.1 could not be cross-examined effectively after his recall as the senior counsel engaged by the petitioner was otherwise engaged in other court and he could not reach the court within time as his scooter got some mechanical defect and thereby junior counsel proceeded to cross-examine PW.1. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the junior counsel could not effectively cross-examine PW.1 on some important aspects and it necessitated the petitioner to file an application to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. The contention of the petitioner appears to be impressive, but on close scrutiny of the material placed on record, I do not detain myself long to reject the same. In the counter filed by the respondent/complainant resisting the application, it is stated as hereunder: “It is submitted that the present application filed by the petitioner/accused is not maintainable under law nor on facts, the petition filed U/Sec.311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the PW.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed. The respondent submits that the Chief Affidavit filed on 05.05.2010 and again the matter has been posted to 03.06.2010 for cross-examination of PW.1, but the petitioner’s counsel is not turn up for cross-examination of PW.1 and again the matter has been posted for further PW.1 cross-examination on number of adjournments i.e., 16.06.2010, 23.06.2010, 26.07.2010, 28.07.2010, 02.08.2010, 09.08.2010, 17.08.2010, 24.08.2010, 27.09.2010, 04.10.2010, 06.10.2010, 07.10.2010, 11.10.2010, 21.10.2010, 27.10.2010 and in the above said adjournments the petitioner’s counsel not at represented before the Hon’ble Court and on 29.10.2010 Crl.M.P.No.6183 of 2010 was allowed and the counsel for the petitioner cross examined the PW.1 and the matter has been posted further adjournment for 313 examination and on 09.11.2010 the petitioner/accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and the matter was posted for arguments on 10.11.2010. On 10.11.2010 the counsel for the petitioner has filed a recall petition to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination.” The material brought on record indicates that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine PW.1. Therefore, there is no justification in the request made by the petitioner to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2226 of 2010 Date:02nd December, 2010