Telangana High Court
T. Malla Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 11 October, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5802 of 2022
ORDER:
1. Heard Sri Abhishek who is representing Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel on record for the petitioner. Though Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, is on record representing the 2nd respondent, learned counsel failed to appear and submit his contentions.
2. Seeking the Court to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, in Crl.M.P.No.386 of 2021 in C.C.No.377 of 2019, dated 04.05.2022, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
3. The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in the calendar case in question, moved an application under Section 284 Cr.P.C. for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of Sri K.Vidyasagar Rao. The plea taken is that the said witness suffered with 'Covid' infection, got admitted at Yashoda Hospital and therefore, it would be inconvenient for him to appear before the Court. The 2nd respondent resisted the relief sought for 2 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.5802 of 2022 on the ground that no case is made out for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was pressed into service mechanically. The trial Court on hearing both sides, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sitting MLA and therefore, he cannot come to the Court to give evidence. Section 284 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that where the attendance of the witness cannot be procured without any amount of delay, expense or inconvenience, a Commission can be issued. In the case on hand, this Court does not find existence of any such grounds so as to entertain the request of the petitioner. The trial Court having discussed all the aspects of this case, has passed a reasoned order. Also, the trial Court observed that no medical record, whatsoever, is produced in proof of the ill-health of the alleged witness and that the witness cannot appear before the Court basing on the ground urged. Also, from the date of dismissal of the application, much time has elapsed. 3
Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.5802 of 2022
5. Thus, this Court is of the view that the witness can well appear before this Court and give evidence. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, this Court is not inclined to honour the request of the petitioner.
6. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The interim order granted on 05.07.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 stands vacated.
7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Date:11.10.2022.
ysk 4 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.5802 of 2022 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5802 of 2022 Date:11.10.2022.
ysk 5 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.5802 of 2022