APHC010142932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3150/2025 Between: Boya Moogi Paramesh, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2025 whereby the petition filed under Section 3(11) Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW1 and PW3 for the purpose of further cross examination was dismissed by the Special Judge for Trial of 2 Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Kurnool. 3. The learned Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that recall of witness for further cross examination cannot be automatically permitted in the absence of sufficient reason being shown. 4. The proposed further cross examination to elicit the relationship with the accused family and the property dispute between them is of no relevance to the facts of the present case. As no sufficient reason was shown, the application seeking recall of PW1 and PW3 for further cross examination was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in Crl.M.C.9045 OF 2022 whereby the learned Judge has set aside the order of dismissal for cross examination of the witness on the ground that bar under Section 33(5) of POCSO Act is not absolute and that in appropriate cases if it is necessary for the just decision of the case, the child witness can be recalled. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Madhurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.M.P.No.16055 of 2022. The Madras High Court allowed the petition and permitted the petitioner therein to cross examine the witness who was sought to be recalled. 3 7. Section 35 of the POCSO Act reads as follows: “35. Period for recording of evidence of child and disposal of case:- (1) The evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court. (2) The Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.” 8. The POCSO SC.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court at Kurnool and Section 35 would come in the way of the petitioner’s application seeking recall of witnesses for further cross examination apart from the bar under Section 33(5), the provision of law under Section 35 of POCSO Act would also disentitle the petitioner to seek such relief. 9. On these grounds, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the well considered order of the learned Special Judge. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BMS