SURESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against ah order dated 09.04.2015 passed in S.C. No. 439/2009 by the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby, the I.A. filed under S. 311 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under S. 302 of IPC. The prosecution having concluded its evidence, the petitioner filed an I.A. under S. 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of PWs. 2, 3 and 11, for cross -examination. The application having been opposed by the prosecution, the impugned order was passed.

(2.) THE Trial Judge has held that the reason assigned that on 20.02.2015, the Advocate was unwell, is not a sufficient justification to seek the recall of witnesses. Another reason assigned is, that by remaining absent, the Advocate for the accused is trying to control the proceedings in his own way and that the criminal proceedings cannot be conducted at the pleasure of the accused.

(3.) SMT . R. Anitha, learned HCGP, on the other hand contended that the application filed by the petitioner in the Court below being bald and there being no bonafides, learned Sessions Judge is justified in passing the order of rejection. She submitted that the petitioner having adopted dilatory tactics and there being procrastination of trial, the petitioner is not entitled to seek recall of the witnesses.