Sri. Srinivasa B. vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking to recall several witnesses, on the footing that the prosecution has examined an expert witness and the expert witness has furnished an opinion, which would negate the assertions made by the several witnesses and therefore, it has become necessary to recall the said witnesses. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made an application in all earnestness and not with an intention to protract the proceedings and it is in his own interest to ensure that there is a speedy trial and the endeavour is to arrive at truth.

However, the learned Counsel for the respondent would point out that the petitioner has not stated the reason or the aspect on which he seeks to cross-examine the witnesses, who were duly cross-examined at the relevant point of time. It is for the first time stated before this court that it is to confront the witnesses with the alleged signatures found on various documents, which the handwriting expert has certified, as not belonging to the petitioner. In any event, if there is inconsistency between the expert evidence and the evidence tendered by the other witnesses for the prosecution, it enures to the benefit of the petitioner and it is not necessary to recall those witnesses, whom he has cross-examined in the first place.

Given the above contentions and having regard to the power that is contemplated u/s 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it is evident that the court below is enabled to exercise its discretion one way or the other and the petitioner not having satisfied the court that it would be necessary to recall the witnesses and the same having been rejected, there is no warrant for this court to interfere, notwithstanding the earnestness with which the petitioner may have made the application to defend himself. As rightly pointed out, the concern of the petitioner would be to urge the above contention at the hearing and without having to recall the said witnesses. Incidentally, the counsel for the petitioner has raised yet another issue that he has not been permitted to tender evidence. This would depend on the answers that the petitioner has tendered to the questions posed by the court, while recording his statement u/s 313 of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, if the petitioner has indicated that he intends to tender evidence and has been shut out from doing so, the petitioner would certainly have the advantage in seeking that the proceedings stand vitiated on that count. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to take advantage of any such situation.

The petition is rejected.