PARA TOPPO Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/revisionist-petitioner has filed the present application under section 397 read with section 401 Cr. P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, in SC No. 63/10 whereby the learned ST No. 80/10 Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application under section 311 Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner wanted to recall three witnesses who were examined, fully cross-examined and thereafter discharged. It appears from the impugned order itself that such examination and cross-examination of such witnesses took place long time back. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that with regard to two of the aforesaid witnesses, the cross-examination was done ten months back and with regard to the other witness the said learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the said witness was fully cross-examined long back.

(3.) It appears from the impugned order itself that the prosecution closed evidences of PWs on 14.11.2011 and after that the case was fixed for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr. P.C. on 30.11.2011. But, on that day, learned lawyer for the accused wanted time and time was allowed and 5.12.2011 was fixed for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. But, on that day also the learned lawyer for the accused also prayed for time on the ground of un-readiness and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also found that the learned lawyer for the accused similarly wanted time on 8.12.2011 and again on 12.12.2011 and such time was allowed and ultimately accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the learned lawyer for the accused filed the petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2011 to recall the said three prosecution witnesses.