The Secretary To The Govt.Of India And ANR v. D.R.Navalur, Medak.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 2277 OF 2022 Between:

V. Veeresh Partner sri Veerabadra, age.4syrs, Medical and General stores, shop No,3, GP Complex, Achampet, Mahabubnagar District' ...PETITIONEFUACCUSED AND State of Telangana, rep. by P.P. High Courtforthe State of Telangana at---.- iyterabaO.

"RESPONDENT Petition under section 482 ol cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order in crl.M.P.1341 ol 2021 in c.c.No.15 of 2010, dated 24-02-2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First class at Achampet and consequently allow the petitioner to further cross examine PW2 ' l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\,4emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further Proceedings in c.c.No.15 ol 2010 cn.MP.134112021 dt.24-02-2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First class at Achampet. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P pRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Publlc Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the ResPondent The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITIoN No.2277 OF 2022 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr1.M.P.No.1341 of 2021 in C.C.No.15 of 2OlO, pending on the lile of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet. The petitioner herein is sole accused in the said crime. The offence alleged against him is under Section 27 (cl of Drugs and Cosmetics Act (for short 'the Act') for the contravention made under Section 18 (a) (1) read u'ith Section 16,27(d\ and 17 (b) of the Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent' Perused the record.

3.

The petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.PC vide Crl.M.P. No.1341 of 2O2l to recall P.W.2 for further cross-examination on the ground that he is a crucial witness. Though liberty was given to the petitioner by allowing the earlier application, the petitioner herein could not avail the same due to unavoidable circumstances. According

to the petitioner, certain important aspects have to be elicited from P.W.2. The said application was resisted by the respondent. The Court below has dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 24.O2.2022. Challenging the same the petitioner herein {i1ed the present petition.

4, A perusal of the record vuould reveal that the Calendar Case is of the vear 2O10 and the trial u'as commenced on 17 .02.2012 itself. Thereafter, matter was posted for arguments on 26.04.2018 on which date the petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section 31 1 of Cr.PC vide Cr1.MP. No.783 of 2079 seeking to recall P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. The said application was allowed, P.W.2 was recalled and the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine P.W.2 on 28.02.2022. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Therefore, referring to the same, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein.

5.

While dealing with the application fiIed under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to consider the following three aspects: -

I .3 ;

(1) Whether the said witness sought to recall is necessary to come to just conclusion ?

(2) Whether the prosecution has liled the said application to IiIl up the lacunas ?

(3) Whether the accused has filed .the said application to drag on the proceedings ?

6.

In the present case, the Calendar Case is of the year 2010 and the petitioner herein had fi1ed the present application in the year 2021. Therefore, 4ccording to this Court, on consideration of the entire facts, the Court below rightly dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner. It is a reasoned order and well founded. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order.

7 .

In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. Considering the fact that the CC is of the year 2010, learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the said CC in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand SD/.T,KRISHNA ASSISTANT REG KUMAR TRAR ,TRUE COPY// To 1.

2.

3.

SECTION The Judicial Masistrate of First Class at Achampet, Mahabubnagar Distrrct The Assistant Director, l/c. Drugs lnsPector, Mahabub nagar Two CCs to public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Tela (our) CCtoS One FFICER ngana t) Two CD Coo Ono e^..^ h Rl P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OpUC]

HIGH COURT DATED: 1110312022 16c S iA15 ,q;\ i) *r/ { 2 8 l\?R 2t22 or)

ORDER

\.,,:*:

CRLP.No.2277 of 2022 DISMISSING TIIE CRL.PETITIO:r-.

qEt$rr 1.\