The High Court · 2025

The state of Telangana,, thqoug! S.H.O., PS, Rajender Nagr, Rachakonda. Rep by public prosecutor, High Court of T.S. Hyd;erabad. - . N.Narssing-Rao., S/o_qolklolvn to petitioner, Aged about. 50 years, Occ. Sub_ Inspector of Police, PS Saidabad, Hydrabad. O7o. pS.SaidabiO, ttyOerabaA ...RespondenUComplainant 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 order for the recall PW-4iinvestigation officer for the cross- examination upon him in c.c.No.382 of 2017 on the file of XIV Additional chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad l.A NO:1 oF 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 stay all further proceedings in c.c.No.382 ot 2o1z on the file of the XIV Additional chief JudiciEl Magistrate, Hyderabad, including Examination of the accused under Section bts cr.p.c. and any other further iteps in the trial, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri shaik Saifullah, Advocate for the Petitioner and the sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No .9926 ot 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for sho( 'the BNSS'), seeking to recall PW4 for cross-examination in C.C.No.3B2 of 2017 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the sole accused, is facing trial for an offence under Section 153(A) of the lndian Penal Code (lPC). During the course of the trial, on 17.07.2025, the lnvestigating Officer (PW4) was examined-in-chief. Although the petitioner was personally present on that.date, his counsel could not attend due to a sudden illness. Consequently, cross-examination could not be conducted. ln that situation, the trial Court recorded 'cross- examination: Nil' and adjourned the matter for further proceedings to

24.07.2025.

4. Subsequently, on 22.07.2025, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC), seeking recall of PW4 for the purpose of cross-examination. The trial 2 Court, however, dismissed the application, observing that PW4 is an official witness and that securing his presence without delay would not be r feasible, particularly since the case was listed as an identified matter. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the absence of the petitioner's counsel was neither deliberate nor negligent, but was solely due to his counsel's sudden and se!'ious illness. lt is further submitted that the recall petition was filed promptly within four days, thereby evidencing bona fides. The counsel emphasizes that cross-examination of the lnvestigating Officer is essential for bringing out omissions, contradictions, and discrepancies in the prosecution case. Therefore, the refusal of the trial Court to afford such an opportunity is unjustified, and an indulgence of this Court is sought to permit one effective opportunity for cross-examination of PW4.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that, since the case has been treated as an identified matter, the trial Court rightly proceeded to dispose of the recall petition. Nevertheless, prayed for passing the s{table orders in the interest of justice

7. Having perused the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner is the sole accused and is facing a serious charge. lt is not in dispute that, on the relevant date, the petitioner/accused was personally present before the trial Court. However, his counsel was absent owing to \ a J sudden illness. The explanation offered for such absence appears to be bona fide and satisfactory, and, in the absence of any indication of mala fides or deliberate intent to delay proceedings, the same deserves acceptance. ln such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine PW4 in the interest of justice.

8. The trial Court, however, dismissed the petitioner's application on theground that the case was an identified mafter and thatsecuring the presence of the official witness would cause delay. This reasoning, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable, as denial of the right to cross-examination would cause greater prejudice to the accused than any inconvenience occasioned in producing the witness again. The right of cross-examination, being a valuable safeguard under criminal \ I jurisprudence, cannot ordinarily be denied, particularly in respect of the lnvestigating Officer, whose testimony is crucial for establishing t contradictions and omissions

9. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused ought to be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine PW4. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. lt has been brought to the notice of this Court that the matter is presently posted on 20.08.2025 for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of .---..-Qflrnjnal Procedure. ln light of this, the 1st respondenUProsecution is I 4 directed to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of pW4 for cross-examination on the date to be fixedly the triar court. on such date, the petitioner shail avair the opportunity to cross-examine pw4, after which the trial court shafi proceed further in accordance with raw.

10. It is further made crear that, in the event of fairure on the part of the petitioner to cross-examine pw4 on the date so fixed by the triar court, this order shall stand rendered ind{feetlvq and no reguest fgr arly further indulgence shall be entertained.

11. ln the above terms, this Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. \ SD/- AVS PRASAD, EPUTY REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 The XIV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad IOUTI Ohe CC to 'Sri Two CD Copies Shaik Saifullah, Advocate IOPUCI L NVB M- I , HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 U,E 1 s () 20 A ?[25 * DEseq-rC z C)x * ORDER CRLP.No.9926 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I 1p