PRASHANT MADREKAR Vs. POLICE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner/ accused is challenging the order dated 16/10/2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Panaji in Special Case No.2/2014. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for recalling PW1 Thomas Menezes, for further crossexamination, has been rejected.

(3.) The brief facts are that the petitioner is facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act before the learned Special Court at Panaji. It appears that earlier, the petitioner was represented by Advocate Mr. De Sa. PW1 Thomas Menezes, who is the complainant and a material witness, came to be examined and was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner by Advocate Mr. De Sa. On 21/12/2010, further cross-examination was deferred. It appears that, subsequently, there is yet another endorsement dated 14/03/2011, recording that no further crossexamination was sought for. It appears that subsequently, the petitioner changed his Counsel and engaged Advocate Shri Vernekar, who cross-examined the witnesses from PW4 to PW12. It was at this stage that an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed, for recalling PW1 for further crossexamination. It was contended that the copy of deposition of PW1, which the petitioner had received from his earlier Advocate, did not contain an endorsement about closure of the crossexamination of PW1 (which is recorded on 14/03/2011). It was, thus, contended that the petitioner was under a bonafide impression that further cross-examination of PW1 is reserved. It was contended that even Advocate Shri Vernekar was under the same impression. It is also contended that the new Counsel was under a disadvantage, in as much as, he was unable to know, as to the scheme of defence or the strategy under which, initially, the further cross-examination of PW1 was reserved deferred. It is also contended that the prosecution has dropped several witnesses, as a result of which, they could not be cross-examined. It was, thus, contended that, it is necessary to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution.