IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2026 OF 2006 Between:
M/s. J.K. Industries Limited . PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2026 OF 2006 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”), is directed against the docket order, dated 20.11.2006, in C.C.No.341 of 1999, on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby, fresh summons were directed to be issued to all listed witnesses through Court and R.P. on payment of batta.
2. The docket order reads as follows:
“Accused absent, petition filed, allowed. Witnesses absent. Summons not returned. Accused filed a memo that Hon’ble High Court granted two months time, allowed. Hence, issue Fresh summons to all listed witnesses through Court and R.P. on payment of batta and call on 11.12.2006.”
3. On 08.12.2006, while ordering notice before admission in the revision case, interim suspension of the impugned order for a period of eight weeks was granted by this Court, however, observing that, that order would not preclude in further proceedings of the matter and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the matter within one month from the date of receipt of that order. That order was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court while setting aside the orders, dated 08.12.2006 and 19.12.2006, directed this Court to dispose of the matter.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. A petition is filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein/A1 and A2 in Crl.MP.No.5330 of 2005 in C.C.No.341 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, to summon list of witnesses on the ground that the first and second witnesses, namely, E. Vijaya Raghavan and S. Ranga Rajan, had a telephonic talk with respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, in which they have admitted that they have to pay huge amounts to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and along with it cassette is also filed. With regard to the alleged conversation between the two witnesses and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner herein. Thereafter, this Court in Crl.Rc.Nos.338 and 337 of 2006, dated 13.02.2006, this Court directed the trial Court to issue fresh summons to the Bank Manager – DW.1 and secure his presence and examine him within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to produce other evidence within one and half months from that date and shall cooperate with the Court for disposal of the case within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In view of the fact that this Court has given permission to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to produce witnesses within one and half month, the trail Court issued summons to all the witnesses through Court and Registered Post. But, this Court did not give specific direction to trial Court to summon the witnesses of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein through the process of Court. It is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to produce the listed witnesses before the trial Court. Therefore, in so far as issuing summons to the listed witnesses, it cannot be said to be correct and proper. It is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to produce the list of witnesses, because this Court directed the Court below to secure and examine DW.1 within one month and directed the accused to produce other evidence within one and half month from the date of receipt of that order. Therefore, it is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to produce those witnesses within the time fixed by the trial Court. Since, there is no purpose of summoning the third witness, namely, Raghupathi Singhania, Managing Director of the complainant company, there is no need to produce him before the trial Court by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. However, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein were given liberty to produce Sri E.Vijaya Raghavan and Sri S. Ranga Rajan, before the trail Court on the date so fixed by the trial Court, without taking any adjournments. For any reason, if respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein fail to produce those two witnesses on the date so fixed by the trial Court, it is deemed that no extension of time would be given to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to examine those witnesses.
6. With the above observation the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. However, it is made clear that the trial Court shall take effective steps to summon D.Ws.1 & 2 for cross-examination and also the trial Court shall dispose of the case within a period of one month, after examination of the witnesses.
K.C. BHANU, J July 01, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O.MD