KANDARPA SAHU @ KUPAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seek to assail the order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T. (Sessions) No.211 of 2003. By the said order a petition filed under Section 311 CrPC praying to recall P.Ws. 1, 3 and 11 for further cross -examination by the accused -petitioners was rejected.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners they along with one Abhay Biswal are facing trial in the aforesaid C.T.(Sessions) Case for alleged commission of offences under Sections 147/148/302/294/323/506 IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial of the case has commenced and the evidence on behalf of the prosecution has been concluded and after recording of accused statement the case is now posted for adducing defence evidence. At this juncture it was noticed that certain relevant questions could not be put to P.Ws.1, 3 and 11 due to oversight and a petition under Section 311 CrPC was filed by the petitioners to recall the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. The said petition, as stated earlier, has been rejected by the impugned order. The case has a chequered career, inasmuch as earlier all the five petitioners had filed a similar petition before the Court below under Section 311 CrPC to recall P.Ws 2, 3 and 11 for further cross -examination. The said petition having been rejected by the Court below by order dated 18.6.2005 they had approached this Court in CRLMC No.1591 of 2005. This Court after taking note of the submissions by order dated 9.11.2005 allowed the prayer of the petitioners, quashed the order dated 18.6.2005 of the Court below and directed to recall P.Ws. 2, 3 and 11 for further cross -examination.

(3.) IT is needless to say that on earlier occasions the accused petitioners had prayed to recall P.Ws. 2, 3 and 11 but then in the latter petition they prayed to recall P.Ws.1, 3 and 11. The petition also contained the questions sought to be put. The Court below after hearing learned counsel for the accused and the public prosecutor and after discussing all the materials came to the conclusion that the entire exercise was meant only to delay the disposal of the sessions case and as accused Jadu Sahu was in custody since long, the petitioners who were his co -accused and were on bail, should not be allowed to cause delay in disposal of the case and rejected the petition.