The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRINIVAS KAPATIA (SPL PP FOR CBI) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. S]UJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.128t :'f 2ol24 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is hled aggrie,,:cl by the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.12( : of 2024 in C.C.No.13 of 2OO7 by the learned I Additional Srr cial Judge for CBI Cases, Hl.derabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the pet rioner/accused No.2 filed a petition under Section 31 I Cr.p.C. s .r.king to recall PWs 1, 3, 4, 7 , 8, and 10 for cross-examination le contended that due to continuous health problems and his :rrrents,illness with cancer, his mind was not active and he .ould not give proper instructions to his counsel. As a res rlt, his earlier counsel reporred "Nil" cross-examination. He .t bmitted that non-cross-exarnination was neither willful nor lcliberate and prayed that recalling was necessary to avoid irrep. rable loss. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor l,.bre the trial Court opposed the petition, stating that the case vas registered by CBI in 2OO4 involving wrongful loss of Rs.t9O lakhs to Corporation Bank and charge-sheet was filc against 12 2 SKS'., Ctl.RC.No.I281 of 2024 accused. He argued that the present application was only a delaying tactic, since the petitioner already had ample opportunities to cross-examine witnesses at different stages. The plea of ill health was not supported by any medical proof, and no new facts were disclosed for recalling witnesses. After hearing both sides, vide order daLed 06.12.2024, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the case pertains to the year 20O7, witnesses were examined long ago i.e., between 20 I 1_ 2077, and many of them u'erc already recalled earlier. The accused was presen t during examinations and even reported "Nil" cross-examination himself. No medical documents were hled to justify the plea of ill-health. The trial Court further held that recalling witnesses atter Z-g years would waste time, harass witnesses, and defeat the ends of justice. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revrsion case was hled.

3. Heard Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Srinivas Kapadiya, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial Court was not in consonance with law or facts sKs,J ( l. 1.C.No.1281 of2024 and that the delay in trial was mainly due to irc prosecution, which took scveral years even to complete the c :,:l examination of witnesses like PW-2 and PW-8, and hence thc linding that the petitioner intended to keep the proceedings alivr ,..'.ts erroneous. He further submitted that no accused would del _,,:rately wish to prolong prosecution and suffer for decades, ar rl thr-'refore the observationof the trial Court about the ir ,_.n tion of the petitioner was perverse and that the reasoning c he Court that litigants seek to take advantage of non-availabi r,, of witnesses was illogical, and instead the Court could h: ,r. rer:alled the witnesses with a safeguard that no advantage u l rld be given if witnesses could not be secured.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner cont ncled that the finding that witnesses might feel harassed by "r'peated recall was unsustainable in the present case, since thc \( l tnesses were bank ofhcials and borrowers in a financial f , rr-rd case, not disinterested individuals. He further contendr r thzrt Section 31 1 Cr.P.C. vested wide discretion in the Court 1() ensure that justice was not defeated by incomplete or inconc and the trial Court failed to exercise that disc; :;ive evidence, , ion in a fair manner. He r:mphasized that the object of Sect r.r 311was to 4 sl(s,J Crl.R.C.No.l2E I of 2024 discover the truth and render a just decision, and that principles of fair play required allowing correction of inadvertent errors. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal revision case.

6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor filed counter affidavit stating that the trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and passed a well-reasoned order after appreciating the facts, evidence, and judicial records and that ample opportunities were already given to the petitioner to cross-examine PWs l, 3, 4,7,8, and 10, but the petitioner failed to utilize them and even previously availed recall of witnesses by frling applicalions. He submitted that the present petition was only a delaying tactic fi1ed at the final stage of trial when the Investigating Officer's evidence was due. He further submitted that the plea of ill heaith was vague and unsupported by any medical record, and the petitioner had not disclosed any new facts or reasons warranting recall of the witnesses. He contended that even bank employees or borrowers, once cited as witnesses, would feel harassed if they were called repeatedly without any justiliable cause. He maintained that sufficient oral and documentary evidence had 5 SKS,J Cr l?.C-Ho.l28 t of2024 already been brought on record against the pet t,rner and that the accusecl, apprehending conviction, was attel tl)ting to derail the proceedings by hling such petitions. There rrt:, he praycd the Court to dismiss the revision case.

7. In thc light of the submissions made by b ,:h the Iearned counsel ancl on perusal of the material available , 'l rccord, it is evident that the present petition has been filed s .t king recall of PWs.1, 3, 4,7,8 and 10 nearly after a lapse of 1( ,icars from the date of their examination. It is a settled proposi. r:,n of law that when a party approaches the Court belatedly ,.. rer:alling of witnesses, it is incumbent upon him to satisfy her Court with cogent reasons as to why the opportunity whicl, ..,r'as available earlier was not availed.

8. In the present case, except making a vagu, plezr that due to ill-health the petitioner could not give instr rr.tions to his \ counsel, no material whatsoever has bee I pl.rced to substantiate the same. No medical record has ber ;- Iilccl and no new fact or circumstance has been urged by rJte petitioner w'hich would warrant recalling of the witnes.cs. On the contrary, the record reflects that on the da ,.: s u,hen the witnesses were examined, the petitioner/ accuse L was present 6 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.1281 of 2024 '1 and his counsel had either cross-examined or reported "Nil". The docket further shows that even recall of some witnesses had been earlier permitted and availed.

9. Therefore, the hling of the present petition after neariy a decade, without any plausible explanation for the delay and without placing any fresh material, only indicates that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the trial and delay the proceedings, more so when the case is at the stage of examination of the Investigating Ofhcer. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the recall petition and the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To, Sd/- NAYAN CHA NDRA SEKHAR RAO EPUTY REGTSJRfiR-- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The lAddl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. DEEPAK MISRA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS KAPATIA (SPL PP FOR CBI) Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies N SR-/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2210912Q25 ORDER CRLRC.No.1281 of 2024 i -, i. i, ).,. \. '_ a') '\-. '- 'i 1 4 i:iT 206 ,: j -, ;I -'.*:i' :-_ ---1.- DISMISSING THE CRLRC b ))