IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1326 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Sri.G.C.Ningappa S/o Chikappa, aged about 56 years, R/a Hadadi Village, Davangere Taluk and District. (By Sri.R.Hemanth Raj, Advocate) AND:
State by Hadadi Police Hadadi Police Station, Hadadi, Davangere, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.S.T.Naik, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the impugned order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C.No.91/2012.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Reply given to office objections is accepted and it stands over ruled.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 01.02.2019. It would disclose that an application filed by petitioner-accused for recall of PW Nos.1 to 5 and 11 has been dismissed on the ground that they were examined and cross-examined at length and the matter is of the year 2012. In fact, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is also recorded. As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, no cogent reasons are assigned for recalling said witnesses for further cross-examination, except stating “In the aforesaid case, further cross examinations of PW-1 to 5 and 11 is very essential to elicit the truth in respect of alleged incident.” If the aforesaid witnesses were subjected for to further cross examination as sought for, then also the very same difficulties now expressed i.e., difficulty to elicit the truth would still continue.
The reason assigned by accused for recall of witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 and PW-11 as noticed herein above is as vague, vagueness could be. Even otherwise, the interest of justice does not command for further cross- examination of PWs-1 to 5 and 11 in the background of they having been extensively cross examined. As such, no injustice muchless, inconvenience will be caused to the petitioner-accused, if the impugned order is not set aside. No other good ground is made out. Hence, petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE AG