Orissa High Court
Sk. Ramjan @ Babulu vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties on 25 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1996 of 2025
Sk. Ramjan @ Babulu ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Rajib Lochan Pattnaik
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
25.08.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer
made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 528 of B.N.S.S., the
Petitioner seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
to quash the order dated 18.03.2025 at Annexure-2 passed in T.R.
Case No.56 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Nabarangpur thereby
rejecting an application filed by the accused-petitioner under
Section 348 of the B.N.S.S. to recall P.W. 7 i.e. the victim for her
further cross-examination.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that there is no bar to recall the victim in a POCSO case for her
further cross-examination. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at
this juncture, referring to some of the judgments, argued that the
bar contained under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act is not an
absolute bar, instead, it is open to the learned trial court to
exercise such power under Section 348 of the B.N.S.S. to recall
any of the witnesses. He further submitted that although a case
was well made out before the learned trial court to recall the P.W.
7, the same has been rejected by the learned trial court in an illegal
and arbitrary manner. Being aggrieved by such order dated
18.03.2025, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present application.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, while
supporting order dated 18.03.2025 at Annexure-2, contended that
the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing
such impugned order. She further submitted that the Petitioner has
failed to make out a case to recall the P.W. 7-victim for her further
cross-examination. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the State contended that the present application is devoid of merit
and that it has been filed only with the intention to prolong the
trial. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present application be
dismissed at the threshold.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides,
on a careful examination of order dated 18.03.2025, further
keeping in view the factual background of the present case, this
Court, on a careful analysis of the impugned order, is of the view
that learned trial court has not committed any illegality in
rejecting the petition of the Petitioner. While disposing of the
present application, this Court would like to observe that although
the Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act would not be an absolute bar
to recall the victim as a witness for her further cross-examination,
the same shall be subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial
court and such power has to be exercised very cautiously keeping
in view the necessity of such further cross-examination and that
such power can only be exercised in the event such further cross-
examination is required for a justice to some of the case.
7. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
petitioner has failed to make out any such case for recall of the
witness and that the learned trial court has rejected the application
of the Petitioner by passing a reasoned order. In such view of the
matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order dated 18.03.2025. Accordingly, the present application
stands dismissed. Further, while disposing of the present
application, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move an
application along with a questionnaire before the learned trial
court within ten days from today. In such eventuality, the learned
trial court shall dispose of such application within two weeks
thereafter, strictly in accordance with law and keeping in view the
principles laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC
application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 26-Aug-2025 11:18:35
