Ramamurthy vs State of Karnataka

Arali Nagaraj, J.—Though this matter is listed today for admission, having regard to the nature of the relief sought for it is taken for final disposal by the consent of both the sides.

Heard the arguments of Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, the learned High Court Government. Pleader for the respondent.

The only accused in Sessions case No. 159/09, pending on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore, has filed the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C seeking setting aside of the Impugned Order dated 18.3.2010 passed in the said case, rejecting his application filed u/s 311 of Cr.P.C, seeking recall of PW16, the Tahasildar, who conducted inquest proceedings in the said case.

On careful reading of the said Impugned Order, it could be seen that PW16 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused, as the learned Counsel appearing for the accused could not appear in the said case on 18.3.2010 on which date PW16 was examined. It could be seen further from the Impugned Order that the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the death of the deceased to the said case is not disputed and therefore, the said application does not deserve to be allowed.

I am of the considered opinion, that the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner-accused on that ground.

Hence the following.

ORDER

The present petition is allowed. The Impugned Order dated 18.3.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner-accused filed u/s 311 of Cr.P.C is hereby set aside, the said application is allowed. PW16 shall be recalled for cross examination on behalf of the accused.