Telangana High Court
K. Krishna Goud vs M. Sreeramulu on 1 May, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15865 of 2024
ORAL ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to
quash the common order dated 28.08.2024 passed in
Crl.M.P.Nos.1948, 1949 and 1950 of 2024 in C.C.NI.No.3622
of 2022 by the learned VI Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner/accused filed three petitions under Section 311
Cr.P.C. seeking recall of his evidence at the stage of final
arguments to mark certain additional documents, including
Xerox copies of a Provisional Life Membership Certificate
dated 13.07.2013, a banner closing certificate, a complaint to
the Commissioner of Police dated 10.09.2018, and a circular
dated 18.01.2007. The petitioner/accused contended that
these documents were inadvertently omitted during his earlier
examination as DW1. On the other hand, the complainant, an
80-year-old individual, strongly opposed the petitions, stating
that they were filed with a mischievous intent to delay the
SKS,J
proceedings and cause harassment, and that such petitions
were not maintainable in law, particularly at the stage of
arguments. It was submitted that the documents sought to
be marked were either irrelevant or inadmissible and would
not contribute to the just decision of the case. Upon hearing
both sides and considering the legal position, the trial court
dismissed the petitions observing that the power under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and must be exercised
with great caution and only for strong and valid reasons. It is
further held that the documents were not essential to the just
decision of the case, were mostly secondary in nature, and
that the delay in filing the petitions was unexplained. The trial
Court further noted that allowing the petitions at this stage
would amount to filling up lacunae in the defence and would
prejudice the complainant. Aggrieved thereby, the present
criminal petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri A.P. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ram Reddy, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri D.
Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of respondent No.2-State.
SKS,J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner filed these applications to recall witnesses and mark
certain crucial documents which were not available earlier
during defence evidence. These documents are necessary for
a fair adjudication of the case and that the trial Court
dismissed the petitioner's applications solely on the ground
that the case was at the stage of arguments. However, the
same Court allowed a similar application filed later by the
complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., relying on judgments
which were in fact cited earlier by the petitioner. This shows
unequal treatment and amounts to judicial inconsistency.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
complainant had also recalled defence witnesses earlier, and
cross-examination brought out facts that made it necessary
for the petitioner to file and mark additional documents and
that the trial Court wrongly held that the petitioner's
applications were an attempt to fill lacunae, without properly
examining the relevance and admissibility of the documents
filed. He further contended that the trial Court wrongly
assumed that the documents were only Xerox copies, though
the petitioner had filed originals as well. Section 311 Cr.P.C.
SKS,J
permits recalling of witnesses at any stage to ensure a just
decision. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the
common order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal
Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner stating that the documents the petitioner intended
to mark are not original but is photocopies, and that these
documents are not relevant for the adjudication of the matter
before the trial Court. Therefore, there is no illegality in the
order passed by the trial Court, and the trial Court has rightly
dismissed the applications. Hence, he prayed that the Court
dismiss the criminal petition.
7. In light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record,
it is observed that the present petition is filed seeking
permission to mark certain documents. While the learned
counsel for the petitioner asserts the relevance of the
documents, it is not in dispute that the documents, as
referred to in the petition, are Photostat copies. At this stage,
SKS,J
the question of whether these documents are relevant or
admissible cannot be conclusively determined. Therefore, this
Court deems it fit to direct the trial Court to receive the said
documents if the petitioner produces the original versions of
the Photostat copies. The trial Court shall fix a specific date
for this purpose, on which the petitioner shall be permitted to
adduce his evidence and file the original documents.
However, if the petitioner fails to produce the originals and
adduce evidence on the date so fixed by the trial Court, this
petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further
reference to this Court.
8. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is
accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 01.05.2025
SAI
