p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.519 of 2025 Biswambar Samantaray …. Petitioner Mr. B. Dash, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 13.08.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 5th August, 2025 as at Annexure-2 series, whereby, an application under Section 348 BNSS moved by him seeking recall of PWs.3 to 10 was declined. 3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to a communication gap between the learned defence counsel and the petitioner, the witnesses, namely, PWs.3 to 10 could not be cross-examined and therefore, such an application under Section 348 BNSS was pressed into service before the learned court below with a request recalling them but it has led to the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-2 series. The further submission is that though there has been a lapse on the part of the petitioner with a just reason assigned, the learned court below ought to have considered recall of all the witnesses p. 2 including the victim, namely, P.W.3 in the interest of justice but the same has been denied and therefore, the impugned order dated 5th August, 2025 should be set aside with consequential directions issued. 4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, referring to the impugned order i.e. Annexure-2 series submits that the petitioner defaulted in cross-examining the witnesses on the dates of trial and hence, the learned court below rightly declined any such recall at the instance of the defence and hence, it is not liable to be interfered with. 5. A copy of the application is at Annexure-3 series and the same is perused. Referring to the time petition filed before the learned court below dated 29th July, 2025, it is claimed that the petitioner was ill as he was suffering from viral fever by that time, hence, he could not attend the court and then was suffering from diarrhea on 5th August, 2025 and all such witnesses could not be cross-examined and therefore stood discharged. Even though, over a period of two months’ time, the witnesses have been examined but it is claimed that during such period the petitioner was unwell. The learned court below has rejected such an excuse of the petitioner and declined recall of PWs.3 to 10 with a conclusion that it has the obligation to close the hearing for its disposal at the earliest. The fact remains, the victim, namely, P.W.3 has not been cross- examined and like others including the IO, namely, P.W.7. The Court is of the conclusion that in view of the nature of offences alleged, such as, Sections 75, 75(1)(i),143, 351(2)(ii) read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, unless, such an opportunity to p. 3 cross-examine PWs.3 to 10 is allowed, it would cause the substantial prejudice to the petitioner. In other words, the Court is inclined to allow such recall of the witnesses, who have already examined from the side of the prosecution with conditions and subject to cost with the conclusion that such a course of action is necessary in the interest of justice and to avoid any such prejudice being caused to the petitioner at the end of the trial, all the more when, the proceeding is pending at the stage of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and fixed to 14th August, 2025. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 5th August, 2025 at Annexure-2 series in Special G.R. Case No.18 of 2025 is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge (FTSC-II) under POCSO Act, Cuttack to summon P.Ws.3 to 10 allowing their cross- examination in the hands of the petitioner and thereafter, to proceed to deal with the matter as per and in accordance with law. It is further directed that the above order shall be given effect to only upon payment of cost of Rs.2000/- by the petitioner to be received by the informant, namely, P.W.9. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules and in course of the day. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU