STATE ACB REP. Vs. M.BALAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking to quash the Order dtd. 4/6/2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No.158 of 2014 in C.C.No.46 of 2013, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for the trial of ACB Cases, Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool, filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C to reopen the case and recall L.W.13 (DSP, ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati) and L.W.14(Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati).

(2.) Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB representing the petitioner/State and Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/accused officer.

(3.) The brief facts of this petition are that the respondent/accused officer is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool. Around the time, L.W.13 - Trap Laying Officer and L.W.14-Inspector of Police, who assisted L.W.13 in the trap proceedings, who are the crucial witnesses could not be produced before the Court of law on the ground that they were engaged in election bandobast duties for Municipal, ZPTC/MPTC and General Elections, 2014 and their evidence stood closed. On that, the prosecution moved an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C seeking the trial Court to reopen the matter and recall the above witnesses (L.W.13 and L.W.14) for their examination, as their evidence is very much essential for the case of this nature. But, the learned Trial Court without appreciating the matter in a proper perspective went wrong and came to a conclusion that there are no justifiable grounds to recall those witnesses for examination and the application filed thus, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Order of Dismissal, the present quash petition is filed.