* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO + Criminal Petition No.10778 of 2014 %19.09.2014 Between:
Prabhakara Gupta. ....
Appellant AND The State of A.P, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. …. Respondent ! Counsel for Appellant : Sri Koka Srinivasa Kumar ^ Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor for State < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Criminal Petition No.10778 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner/accused seeks quashing of order dated 20.08.2014 in Criminal Revision Petition No.18 of 2004 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool whereunder learned Judge while dismissing the C.R.P. filed by present petitioner confirmed the order in Crl.M.P.No.774 of 2014 in C.C.No.186 of 2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate of First Class (J.M.F.C), Special Mobile Court, Kurnool permitting the prosecution request to recall PW.1 for further chief-examination and to mark certain documents.
2) The factual matrix of the case is thus:
a) The petitioner/ accused who worked as U.D.C, Cashier in Electricity Revenue Office, Kurnool during relevant period is facing charge of Criminal misappropriation of huge amounts of more than Rs.1 Crore. While so, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.3477 of 2012 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C to issue direction to the Electrical Revenue Officer to produce the documents mentioned in the letter in Dis.No.1604 dated 06.08.2012 of J.M.F.C, Kurnool. The said petition is allowed after contest. Subsequently, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.774 of 2014 seeking recall of PW.1—a Retired Assistant Accounts Officer in Electricity Revenue Office, Kurnool to mark the documents produced by his office through PW.1 since he was the competent witness to speak of those documents. This petition was also strenuously opposed by present petitioner/accused inter alia contending that no details of the documents summoned were given so as to enable him to prepare for cross-examination and that there was enormous delay in filing the recall petition after summoning the documents.
b) By a well reasoned order learned J.M.F.C allowed the said petition on 03.04.2014. In respect of contention that there is no clarity about the details of the documents summoned and sought for producing in evidence, learned Magistrate observed that the documents sought to be produced were none other than those listed in the charge-sheet, copies of which were already furnished to the accused on 22.10.2007 and that the summoning order in Crl.M.P.No.3477 of 2012 was not challenged by the accused. With regard to the delay in filing the recall petition also, the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the reason shown by the prosecution for delay.
Thus, Crl.M.P.No.774 of 2014 was allowed by learned Magistrate subject to the admissibility and relevancy of the documents sought to be marked.
c) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/accused preferred C.R.P.No.18 of 2014 before Principal Sessions J u d g e , Kurnool and learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the C.R.P with a direction to the trial Court to furnish the copies of the documents received from Electrical Revenue Officer to enable him to get ready for cross-examination of PW.1.
Hence, the present petition is filed by petitioner/ accused.
3) Heard the appellant/ petitioner.
4) A perusal of the respective orders of the Courts below would clearly show that apart from well reasoned, they protected the interest of the accused to the extent law permitted which can be discernible from the order of the learned Prl.
Sessions Judge, Kurnool wherein a direction was given to the trial Court to furnish the copies of the documents summoned from Electrical Revenue Office, Kurnool in advance before PW.1 is called to the dock for examination so as to enable the petitioner/ accused to prepare well for his cross-examination. Hence, I feel that the orders of the Courts below are impeccable and impregnable. This case relates to the embezzlement of the huge office amounts which needs an early disposal or otherwise there is every possibility of the evidence both oral and documentary being effaced with the efflux of time. None—neither prosecution nor accused shall be given scope to cause delay in a matter of this nature. Present petition is concerned, in my considered view, it is nothing but abuse of process of law to cause further delay in the matter though the Courts below have taken pains to appreciate contentions of the petitioner/accused and also protected his interest to the extent possible. Therefore, it is high time that while dismissing the petition, the petitioner/ accused shall be imposed a fine to serve as a caveat to those who adopt dilatory tactics.
5) In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner/ appellant to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority(D.L.S.A), Kurnool within one month from the date of this order and upon such deposit, the D.L.S.A shall submit intimation to the Registrar(Judicial) of the High Court. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Chairman, D.L.S.A, Kurnool forthwith.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Date: 19.09.2014 RAO, J U.DURGA PRASAD Note: L.R Copy to be marked: Yes / No scs