SHAIK SAIFULLAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is A-2 in C.C.No.462 of 2012, on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, where the petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 353 & 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, which is outcome of Crime No.129 of 2009 of Moghalpura Police Station, Hyderabad.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent State and perused the material on record.

(3.) P.W.3-Mohd. Moqeed Pasha is the Investigating Officer, as per the charge sheet L.W.4. A-2 filed application for recall of P.W.3, who was already cross-examined on 12.09.2018, for further cross-examination. It was dismissed by the trial Court, for the application is as vague as anything as to the area of further cross-examination and as to what necessity. Again another application Crl.M.P.No.2649 of 2018 filed by mentioning that on 10.10.2018, P.W.3 was examined and Senior Counsel was out of availability and junior counsel put some suggestions and important material part not covered with regard to scene of offence and non-examination of independent persons of locality and other important part and also omissions and contradictions that to be put to the Investigating Officer. It was heard and ultimately dismissed with observation by detailed order of the lower Court running in ten paras that earlier Crl.M.P.No.2526 of 2018 was dismissed on 01.11.2018 for no valid grounds to recall P.W.3 for further cross-examination and now again came with the self-same relief by present petition stating the aspects on which further cross-examination now to be asked saying Court got wide powers to recall and he did not challenge the earlier application dismissal order by attain finality and for the self-same relief again cannot file, much less by making some details even under the guise that Court got ample power, that too even under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), it must be shown essential of further examination and not merely at the instance of a party for sake of asking and law is very clear in this regard from the expressions in K.Vittal Rao and others v. State of AP, 2018 1 ALD(Cri) 359 and Mannan SK & others v. State of West Bengal and another Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2014.