THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1982 of 2009 Date: 26-11-2009 Between: B. Manikyam, S/o.Bheemappa, Aged 66 Years, Retd. Executive Engineer, R& B Department, R/o.H.No.2-1-549/C, Nallakunta, Near Shankar Mutt, Hyderabad – 44. - - - Petitioner And The State of A.P. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor (ACB), High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1982 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision is directed against the Order passed in Criminal M.P. No.1030 of 2009 in C.C. No.3 of 2004, dated 20-10-2009 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred as ‘Special Judge’). The State through District Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Kurnool Range, filed a petition under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to summon 16 witnesses and to recall PWs 2 and 7. The case of the petitioner is that due to oversight the names of the witnesses to be examined were not mentioned in the list of witnesses by the Investigating Officer. Counter was filed by the petitioner herein and that the petition was filed only to drag on the proceedings and to fill up the lacunaes. The learned Special Judge by his impugned order allowed the said petition. Challenging the said order, this Revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen aged about 66 years and that he is unable to attend the Court on every adjournment and that there are no reasonable grounds to summon additional 16 witnesses. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for A.C.B. submitted that the record reveals the names of all these 16 witnesses and it is also revealed from the evidence of PW.13 i.e. Inspector of Police A.C.B., that these witnesses have to be examined to prove the prosecution case. In this case, charge sheet was filed in the year 2003, only 13 witnesses have been examined till this date. It is settled law that, at the stage of trial, the prosecution or accused have to be given full opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their versions, the doors should not be closed at the threshold. However, efforts have to be made to see that the proceedings are concluded at an early date. It is most unfortunate that in a case where charge sheet was filed in the year 2003 is still pending. However, having regard to the nature of allegations and the contention of the prosecution that these witnesses are necessary and the prosecution should be given an opportunity to examine those witnesses to establish their case, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be said to be irregular or improper. However, in the circumstances, I am inclined to order as follows : The learned Special Judge, shall give a trial schedule and summon the witnesses as per the schedule and complete the examination of all these witnesses preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The counsel for the accused shall not seek adjournment and if he seeks adjournment, the period mentioned above stands automatically extended. Subject to the above observations, this Revision is dismissed. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 26-11-2009. DSH