IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9464/2018 BETWEEN:
KURUDI S. RAVIKUMAR ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O D.S. SIDDAPPA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.404, B-8, KAILAS APARTMENTS, JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE, MYSORE ROAD KENGERI, BANGALORE-59.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. RAVIKUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND:
STATE BY K.R. PURAM TRAFFIC POLICE REP. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIH, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.505/2013 BEFORE THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59) AT BANGALORE AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO RECALL P.W. AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER FOR FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P.W.2.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. K.S. Ravikumar, petitioner- appearing in-person and Sri. S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. Perused entire case papers and also impugned order dated 27.11.2018 whereunder application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W.2 for further cross-examination has been rejected.
2. Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused in C.C.No.571/2012 which proceedings had been initiated by Krishnarajapuram Police Station alleging that petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and learned trial Judge by judgment dated 19.07.2013 has convicted petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to pay fine of `1,100/- with default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
3. Being aggrieved by said judgment and order of sentence, appeal came to be preferred in Criminal Appeal No.505/2013 and during adjudication of said appeal, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be filed seeking further cross-examination of P.W.2. Said application has been allowed and P.W.2 was cross- examined at length on 04.07.2018. Subsequently, one more application came to be filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W.2 vide Annexure-H contending interalia that P.W.2 has committed perjury under oath. It is also further contended in the application that P.W.2 has even refused to identify his own hand writing and as such, it is essential to recall P.W.2 for further cross-examination and to confront him with other recently discovered documentary evidence. Learned appellate Judge has rejected the said application and opined that discretion vested under Section 311 Cr.P.C is to be exercised sparingly and judicially and in the background of judgment rendered by trial Judge and in the background that P.W.2 had already been extensively cross-examined even at the appellate stage and as such as held further cross-examination of P.W.2 is not essential for just decision of the case. Reason assigned by learned appellate Judge is just and proper and based on sound appreciation of facts and same would not call for interference.
4. Though, Sri. K.S. Ravikumar, party- appearing in person would vehemently contend that P.W.2 was cross-examined only for 20 to 25 minutes and he would require another 15 to 20 minutes to cross-examine P.W.2, that would not be the ground to recall P.W.2 and further examining said witness who has been cross-examined for a considerable length of time would not be required. Length of time cannot be the yardstick for recall of a witness. Learned appellate Judge has rightly rejected said application and it would not call for interference. No other good ground is made out to entertain this petition. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE RU