Sri P.P. Prakash and I.M. Rosy vs The State of Karnataka

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.—While Sessions Case No. 54/2006 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri (sitting at Virajpet) was posted for final arguments, the learned counsel for the accused filed an application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.-6- Gangamma for further cross-examination. The application was opposed by the prosecution. It was heard by the learned Sessions Judge and by order dated 26.10.2013, the application came to be rejected. Hence, this revision petition questioning the correctness of the order. Upon notice to the learned High Court Government Pleader, I have heard the arguments.

The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned order calls for my interference?

Admittedly, after closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the case came to be posted for arguments. At that stage, the accused filed an application to recall P.W.-6-Gangamma for further cross-examination. The reading of the impugned order indicates that the accused by recalling P.W.-6 wanted to further cross-examine P.W.-6 and ask specific question regarding the counter case filed against the complainant and also with regard to criminal case which was already settled by Ponnampet Court. This fact can also be established by producing the documents to that effect in the examination of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., or along with written submissions. If there is a counter case. there will be records to that effect. If a criminal case was already settled by Ponnampet Court, there will be records to that effect. Those records can easily be obtained and produced before the Court. For that recalling of P.W.-6 at this stage and to cross-examine her is not at all necessary. The cross-examination of P.W.-6 was closed long back. After all, the case is of the year 2006. Taking into consideration the pendency of the case since 2006 and that by producing the documents the purpose behind recalling P.W.-6 can be fulfilled, the learned Sessions Judge is right in rejecting the application. No fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, I pass the following order. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.