The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C. No. 685/2005 of the Additional District and Sessions Court-V, Palakkad. He is aggrieved by the orders of the trial court dated 10.09.2014, recalling a witnesses for the third time. The said witness was examined as PW2 by the prosecution. He is only a dog handler, who brought the police dog at the scene of occurrence. The order of the trial court recalling the said witnesses for the third time is sought to be set aside on the ground that there is absolutely no necessity of such an examination for the third time, and that the application made by the learned Public Prosecutor does not contain any reason for such an examination. On a perusal of the deposition given by PW2 in the trial court, I find that the learned Public Prosecutor has in fact elicited everything required by the prosecution, and the witness has in fact deposed, whatever is possible by him as a dog handler. Ext.P9 petition O.P.(Crl.) No. 194 Of 2014 2 filed by the learned Public Prosecutor does not contain any specific or definite reason for recalling the said witness for the third time. I find that the impugned order was passed by the trial court without application of mind. When a witness is sought to be recalled for the third time, and when the said witness is not at all a very material witness, the trial court is bound to look into the request made by the prosecutor, why the witness should be again and again recalled and examined. In this case, I find that the application was made by the learned Public Prosecutor without any specific reason, and the trial court passed the impugned order without application of mind. The said order is liable to be set aside. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the court below on 10.09.2014 on C.M.P. No. 2389/2014 will stand set aside.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE