NIRANJAN PARIDA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter 'OPID Act') filed by the appellants Niranjan Parida and his wife Smt. Lilu Manjari Parida challenging the impugned order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (OPID Act) , Cuttack in Interim Application No.02 of 2015 in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants for recalling of P.W.2 Bhabani Sankar Khuntia for further cross-examination.

(2.) It appears from the order sheet annexed to the appeal memo that on the hazira filed by the Special Public Prosecutor, P.W.2 was examined in chief for the first time on 18.04.2017 and cross examined in part by the counsel for the appellants and the case was deferred to 05.05.2017 for further cross-examination and P.W.2 was directed to remain present in Court on that day. P.W.2 remained present on 05.05.2017 and he was further cross examined and then the case was adjourned to 16.05.2017 for further cross-examination. The crossexamination of P.W.2 resumed on 16.05.2017 and it was adjourned to 20.06.2017. On 20.06.2017 P.W.2 was not present for cross-examination for which the case was adjourned to 07.07.2017. On 07.07.2017 though P.W.2 was present but since the Presiding Officer was on leave, the case was adjourned to 207.2017. On 207.2017 though the learned counsels for the both the sides were present and hazira was filed but it is not clear whether P.W.2 was present for cross-examination, however the case was adjourned to 04.08.2017 for further crossexamination of P.W. Thereafter, on the next four dates i.e. on 04.08.2017, 19.08.2017, 06.09.2017 and 11.10.2017, the learned Special Public Prosecutor filed time seeking petitions and accordingly, time was granted and the case was posted to 31.10.2017.

(3.) On 31.10.2017 P.W.2 was present for his further cross-examination. Due to ailment of the learned counsel for the appellants, a time seeking petition was filed. The learned Presiding Officer posted the case to be taken up at 2.00 p.m. and since at 2.00 p.m., the learned counsel for the appellants was not present, the evidence was closed and P.W.2 was discharged and the case was posted to 06.11.2017 for taking evidence from the side of the opposite parties (appellants) . On 06.11.2017 the appellants filed a petition to recall P.W.2 for further crossexamination and on the said petition, the impugned order dated 28.11.2017 was passed. While dismissing the petition for recall of P.W.2, the learned trial Court held that in the interest of justice, the prayer for recall cannot be allowed.