S. MADHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed seeking setting aside of the order passed by the learned V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District (sitting at Devanahalli) in S.C. No.285/2012 dated 11.04.2014 in rejecting the application filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said case under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners as also the learned High Court Government Pleader in this regard.

(3.) THE order of the trial Court discloses that accused Nos.1 to 5 were chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. On 30.09.2013, the evidence before the trial Court started and PWs.1 and 2 were examined and subsequently, on 19.02.2014, PWs.4 and 5 were examined. The records disclose that accused themselves sought for time to cross - examine PWs.1 to 3 at a stretch after completion of their examination -in -chief. Accordingly, the trial Court accommodated the accused in that regard and the case was adjourned to 23.10.2013. On that day, evidence of PW.2 was recorded and again, the case was adjourned to 26.11.2013. On that day, the witnesses, PWs.1 and 2 were absent. Hence, once again, the Court issued summons and matter was adjourned to 23.12.2013 and on that day, learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 took time to cross -examine PWs.1 and 2 on the ground of ill - health. Again, the Court granted time and posted the case to 13.01.2014. On that day, PWs.1 and 2 were present and learned counsel for accused sought for pass over of the case to cross -examine the witnesses. Later, on the same day, learned counsel for accused did not appear before the Court. Hence, PWs.1 and 2 were discharged. On 05.02.2014, PW.3 was examined and case was adjourned to 19.02.2014, on which day, PWs.4 and 5 were examined and again, time was prayed by accused Nos.1 to 3 for cross -examination of the said witnesses without sufficient grounds. Therefore, the trial Court by the order impugned, has rejected the application filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking summoning of PWs.1 to 5 for cross -examination holding that sufficient time had been granted to the accused, but they failed to utilize the valuable time of the Court granted to them. The trial Court considering the conduct of accused Nos.1 to 3 held that accused Nos.1 to 3 could not claim such opportunity once again as a matter of right and accordingly, dismissed the application.