The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4087 of 2025 Babina @ Prasanta Kumar Mahunta ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Susanta Kumar Baral Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 15.10.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the accused-petitioner by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. with a prayer to quash order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Spl. G.R. Case No.50 of 2024 by the learned A.D.J.-cum-Spl. Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack. 4. By virtue of the impugned order dated 29.08.2025, the learned trial court has rejected the application of the Petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the P.W-8-I.O for his further cross-examination. Page 1 of 4. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the examination of the I.O., who is P.W.-8 in this case, was going on 26.08.2025. The conducting counsel for the accused- Petitioner was out of station. As a result of which his associate was present in Court. An application was moved on behalf of accused- petitioner seeking time. Such time petition has been rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 26.08.2025. Later, on same day, another order was passed on the basis of the memo filed by the learned Special P.P., declining examination of other witnesses from the prosecution side. While accepting such memo, the learned trial court closed the evidence from the side of the prosecution. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that being aggrieved by order dated 26.08.2025, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2025 with a prayer to recall P.W-8-I.O. for further cross-examination. It was stated that the I.O. in this case was not cross-examined properly on behalf of the accused-Petitioner. As a result of which the accused is likely to be seriously prejudiced. However, such application has been rejected on the ground that the accused-Petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity for cross-examining the I.O. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that an attempt has been made at the instance of defence counsel to stall the proceedings. Accordingly, the application to recall P.W.-8 has been rejected. Being aggrieved by such order the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application. In course of his argument learned counsel for the State for his supported the orders passed by the learned trial court on 26.08.2025 as well as on Page 2 of 4. 29.08.2025. He further contended that adequate was given to the accused-petitioner to cross-examine the I.O.-P.W.-8. It was also contended that the I.O. has present throughout a day on 26.08.2025 for his cross-examination. However, due to latches on the part of the counsel for the accused-Petitioner the I.O. still not been cross- examined. As a result of which the prosecution evidence was closed on 26.08.2025. He further submitted that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which was moved on 29.08.2025 has been rightly rejected as the accused-Petitioner had already get an opportunity to cross-examine the I.O. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the State contended that the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application of the Petitioner is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, on a close scrutiny of orders dated 26.08.2025 as well as the impugned order dated 29.08.2025, this Court observes that being aggrieved by the rejection of the application of the Petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.-8 for his further cross-examination, the accused-Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. On a careful analysis of the orders dated 26.08.2025 as well as 29.08.2025, this Court found that the conducting counsel for the defence was called inasmuch as she was provided an opportunity to cross-examine the I.O., and the I.O. remained present in course of the day however, the I.O. could not be cross-examine. This Court further observes that the trials under the POCSO Act are to be Page 3 of 4. concluded in a time bound manner as has been provided under Section 35 of the said act. Therefore, the learned trial court prima facie has not committed any illegality. 9. Further, keeping in view the principle underlying Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the learned trial court should have done well to provide another opportunity to the defence to cross-examine the P.W-8 by imposing cost on the defence. Since not granting further opportunity to the defence to cross-examine the I.O. is bound to affect the credibility of the trial. The principle enshrined in the constitution as well as the procedural law ensures that a fair is conducted trial. In view of aforesaid fact, this Court is inclined to set aside order dated 29.08.2025. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, it is directed that the Petitioner, upon paying of cost of Rs.1000/- to informant, shall be permitted to further cross-examine of P.W.-8. Such further cross-examination shall be conducted on a particular date and concluded in the very same day. Accordingly, it was also directed that the learned trial court on production of a copy of today’s order shall allow for the further cross-examination of the P.W-8 and such cross-examination shall be concluded on a particular date. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 18-Oct-2025 16:29:20 Page 4 of 4.