B. Basavaraju, Advocate for the Appellant; Y.D. Harsha, AGA, Advocate for the Respondent

ORDER

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.Application filed by the petitioner, in S.C. No. 646/2003 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. having been dismissed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-X, Bangalore City on 6.11.2014, this petition was filed to quash the said order and to allow the said application.

2. Heard Sri B. Basavaraju, learned Advocate and perused the record.

3. Sri B. Basavaraju, learned Advocate, did not dispute any of the findings on facts, as recorded in the impugned order. The learned Trial Judge has given a detail narration of the dates and events relating to the matter pending since 2003.

4. In Nisar Khan @ Guddu and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal, , Apex Court has held as follows:--

"9. The other contention of Mr. Jaspal Singh that all the eye-witnesses were turned hostile and the credibility of their testimonies are doubted. It is clearly apparent on the record that eye-witness PWA-Naeem Babu had filed an application before the trial Magistrate (Ex. Kha-27) that he has been threatened and intimidated by the accused not to depose against them. So also PW.1 and PW.2 who were eye-witnesses and supported the prosecution case consistently were turned hostile. PW.1 and PW.2, direct eye-witnesses of the occurrence were examined, cross-examined and discharged on 4.1.2001. They were recalled on 7.1.2002 and re-examined by the defence on which date all of them turned hostile and resiled from the previous statement. It clearly appears that the eyewitnesses were won over by threat or intimidation after more than one year of their examination and cross-examination and ultimately when the eye-witnesses were won over by the accused they were recalled and re-examined on 7.1.2002. Even on reexamination on 7.1.2002 the eye-witnesses consistently supported the prosecution story with regard to the date and place of incident, the Car in which they came and the genesis of incident. To that extent they supported the prosecution story. They resiled from the previous statement only with regard to the identity of the accused. It is in evidence on record that the accused and prosecution parties are at loggerheads because of business rivalry and known to each other from before. Naturally, by the time the eyewitnesses were recalled, they were won over either by money, by muscle power by threats or intimidation. We are of the view that no reasonable person properly instructed in law would allow an application filed by the accused to recall the eye-witnesses after a lapse of more than one year that too after the witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged."

(emphasis supplied)

The decision squarely applies to the case on hand.

5. Keeping in view the events of the case, which have been narrated in detail by the learned Trial Judge, while passing the impugned order, no fault can be found to the order of dismissal, impugned herein.

Consequently, petition being devoid of merit is rejected.