IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8073/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI. N. RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE S. NANJUDNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.114/12, 1ST BLOCK 4TH CROSS, PRASANAN KALYANA MANDIRA ROAD, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.
(BY SRI. RAMALINGAM P.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH SPE DIVISION NO.30 BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:03.08.2017 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU (CCH- 48) ON I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE ACCUSED NO.2/PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.PC., IN SPL.C.C.NO.12/2002 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE ACCUSED NO.2/PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C., IN SPL.C.C.NO.12/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SEESIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-48).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In this petition order dated 03.08.2017 passed by XLVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru in Special Criminal Case No.12/2012 dismissing the application filed by petitioner - accused No.2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.1 for further cross examination is under challenge.
2. Perusal of the records discloses that P.W.1 was initially examined on 15.04.2013. Cross examination was deferred at the request of learned Advocate appearing for accused Nos.1 and 2. On 22.11.2013 P.W.1 was further examined by Public Prosecutor with the leave of the Court. Again, matter was adjourned for cross examination. On behalf of accused No.1, P.W.1 was cross examined on 07.12.2013 and counsel appearing for accused No.2 cross examined P.W.1 on 18.01.2014. There being no re-examination, evidence of P.W.1 was taken as closed. Records on hand would also disclose that P.W.1 has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused No.2 - petitioner herein. As such, trial Court has rightly observed that matter is of the year 2002 and yet, on one pretext or the other, petitioner (accused No.2) has been dragging on the proceedings and as such, trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by petitioner for recalling P.W.1. No infirmity can be found from the impugned order. There are no good grounds to admit this petition. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE *sp