The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Order in Crl. M.P No. 240 of 2024 in C.C. No. 07 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for C.B.l. Cases, Hyderabad dated 06.0'l .2025 and consequently be pleased to recall PW-7, PW-1 lto PW-15, PW-17 lo PW -22 and PW -27 for the purpose of cross examination, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the order in Crl.lvl.P No. 24O ol 2O24 in C.C No. O7 of 2OO7 and allow the Petitioner to file a photocopy of the same for the purpose of the present Criminal Petition, and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E. Uma Maheshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, Advocate for the Petitioirers and the of Sri Srinivas Kapadiya, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER TI]F) HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.JIANA CITIMINAL PETITION NO.3422 OF 2')2S ORDER: Tl:i,. (lr minal Petition is filed undsl :;ection 528 of Bharatil a N rearik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fc', s;)roll- 'BNSS') against rh rrler dated 06.O1.2025 in Crl.M.P.N'r .2'IO of 2024 in C.C.No.t,'7 i, 1lO07 on the file of I Additional S:eci,rl .J tdge for CBI Cas,<--,. rlyclerabad. Thc petitioners here in rrre accused Nos.S, 6 a tti 7 in the said C.C. Tt t: pr'.it.ioners herein have fi1ed a petitiorl r-Ltl<ler Section 2. 311 of ( r' P l. for recalling Pws.7, 8, 11 to 15 arLd '7 t< 22 and 27 fot ct o ;s- t'r:atlination, stating that the said v'itne sst-ri are not cross exa,n; rt,:1 b1- these petitioners. If they ar(r nct cross- examini rl r'll1 cause grcat hardship to the peL tiol.l ers. As such, pr zL erl rht-' trial Court to recall the said r'r'ilnesses.

3. Tlrt Lri:l Court dismissed the said petitiorL ort thl ground lhat thlari,r \\'as fited it-r the year 2OO7 and trial is pending srnce 1l' rr,r:;, rhat as pcr the charge shect, I):oslccut on cited 84 witn:s s.s and examined 44 witnesses and .:rorr th, I case is posted ir - c;< rmination of GtrQD expert and -ae inve stigating 2 officer. The petitioners have not given any reason for their non- examination of the above witnesses on the date hxed by the trial Court. The said witnesses were examined in the year 2Ol4 to

2019. The said petition is hled at a belated qtage and the same is nothing but re-opening of the case and summoning of prosecution witnesses. Aggrieved by the said order, this criminal petition is filed.

4. Hcard Sri E.Uma Maehswara Rao, learned counscl appearing for Sri trnuganti Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srinivas Kapadiya, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that though petitioners Iiled petition for cross-examining the above witnesses, he now restricted his petition only to recall Pws.22 and 27 and submitted that trial Court failed to appreciate that depriving the petitioners to cross-examine the .witnesses will amount to adjudicating the case without subjecting the chief- examination of the witnesses to be tested in cross-examination. Though W.27 was absent for several adjournments, the trial Court has given dates, whereas on the date hxed, at 4.4O p.m, the cross-examination was not done due to inadvertent reasons. ':****.*&F,*efl -.:rler-r'.{'i:.-Y 3 I / I I I I I I I I If petit ic r.r Ls not a1lou,ed, it u,ilI cause ;r -ejttdic:t to the petrtrol-r €'l 'l I e rcln

6. Ir r s lr rort, of his contention, learned :oL ns(: for the petitioncr s r:lied on the judgment In Manju l)evi Vs State of Rajasthan rnd anotherl, wherein the Apex Co,.rt obse r-ved that when ex,ur iration of a witness is necessarl' for the ends of justice, a r(l , rat attendance of such witness carrno bt: procured ''lithour i lr .rrrlount of delay, expense or inconverierrr e u,hich, under rh , r |curnsLances of the case, would l)e L lrrc'i isonable, the Cor rr rrr at, dispense u,ith such attendancc i1n,l mir ,/ issue a commis s,or or the examination of the witrrlss I is also obsen,ecl trLrr. Lhe evidence can be recorded 1>1. *,a1' of video confere rr : i r the town/city where the court is, 'f hus in cases where th :rr.l endance of a witness cannot be procure < r.r,ithout an amclr l1 i ) ' (lelay, commission to record the :virlcnc:: by way of videc ( r)r'.1( r('llcing can bc issued. As such, 1r rar',.',:cl t, us Court to set ;rs dc he order of tri.rl Courl by allow.-rg thrs criminal petitior t . :1 c extcnt of cross-examination of Pv;s.!l ) ttt: d 27. t (2019) (t I ri r eme Court Cases 2O3 4 o 7 . Learned Special public prosecutor would submit that recalling of witnesses, is nothing but re-opening the prosecution evidence, as already 44 witnesses were examined, and the above witnesses were examined in the year 2Ol4 to.2Ol9. pw.27 was examined on 01.10.2019 i.e., six years ago and petitioners filed the petition at a belated stage stating that his cross-examination is necessary, which is only to delay the proceedings in the trial Court. He also relied on the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.3l 12 of 2025 wherein it is observed that discretionary power vested under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C, has to be exercised judiciously for strong and vahd reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice. The petitioner therein liled application seeking recall of Pw. 160 without any valid grounds that too alter lapse of six months and dismissed the said criminal petition. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

8. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, Pws.22 and 27 were not cross- examined by the petitioners. Admittedly, there is delay in hling the petition to recall the witnesses, however, the same cannot be a ground to deny the prayer. Though, petitioners have filed \. -..--.- .l a' 5 petitiolL ,)r' ccalling l3 witnesses, now, they haLve con ined only to rec:tl P tt s.22 and, 27 . Further, learne : l-rpeci rl Public Prosecr.r I rr r;,,Lbmitted that the witnesses are s(lllior cit .zens and it rvill :r rli I icult to procure their presence at pr( scn . Hence, the lrriLl rl'o'rrt .is directed to recall Pws.22 anc.2'/ :ttt< consider lheir r: -i ssi ,r {arnination through video con[ererrcirrg. t securing thcir p ', .;, r , is difficult.

9. \\/r.1.r ihe above directions, the Crirrinal I) rtition is disposcc r: '. L4r :;c:: llaneous petitions, pending, if irny, slt ill stand closcd To, //TRUE COPY// Sd,. MOHD. ISMAIL. DEPt TY REGISTRAR $e':roN oFFtcER

1. The I Ad,jitirl ral Special Judge for C.B.l. Case,:;, llyde rabad

2. The Stati,rn l-lr>use Officer, CBI/ BS & FC., police S.irtior, Bz ngalore.

3. One CC; t t, Sr Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC.s lo TUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the, Sta e of Telangana at HyderabaC 'OUTI

5. Two CE copir:r;. BJLB/KR I \ HIGH COURT DATED:02/05 t2'12 5 ORDER CRLP.No.3422 'tf 2025 CRIMINAL PETITI:IN IS DISPOSED OF -zi'':i' -t ( Ar4I 3 01 ltri ?6 .t -pI. l r,,,1 -t.=-.- t cO / b / /