PADAVALA TIRUMALA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.294 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P and E)-cum-VIII A.M.M. and VIII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, being aggrieved by the order, dtd. 31/5/2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.778 of 2022, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for reopening of D.W.2 evidence, which was eschewed on 6/4/2022, was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent No.2 herein preferred complaint under Sec. 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 against the petitioner herein/accused in C.C.No.294 of 2013. The said case when was coming up for evidence of the accused, he got examined the D.W.2 in chief and she was partly cross-examined. For further cross-examination of D.W.2 by the complainant, it was adjourned. But later D.W.2 did not attend the Court and it was for a few adjournments. Finally on 6/4/2022, the Court below eschewed the evidence of D.W.2 as she failed to attend the Court.

(3.) Then the accused herein moved an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to reopen the evidence of D.W.2. The complainant filed his counter and opposed the said petition. The Court below, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said petition holding that the petition was filed by the petitioner without reasonable ground and is an abuse of the process of law, allowing such applications will not only be against the Rule of law, but, it also would be predicament of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that the petitioner moved application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to recall D.W.2 for cross-examination and on 6/4/2022 both the petitioner and his counsel sought for Passover of the said petition and started searching for the Advocate of the complainant to serve notice in another connected application wanted to be filed in the Court, and finally served it by 12.45 p.m., The learned counsel for respondent had endorsed therein that he prays time for counter. Thereafter immediately, the petitioner and his counsel returned to the Court at 1.00 P.M., and noticed that the Court has eschewed the evidence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner/accused did not follow the directions of the Court and there is no representation. It is further submitted that D.W.2 is a sick woman and she was affected by Covid for two times. Hence, the petitioner submits that he could not bring D.W.2 and as such he filed the application which copy he served on that day of 6/4/2022 on the other side and it was to appoint Advocate Commissioner to record the cross- examination of D.W.2.