M. Sathyanarayanan, J. - (1.) THE revision petitioner is the sole accused facing prosecution for the alleged commission of the offence under Sections 376 and 417 I.P.C. and the offences said to have been taken place ten months prior to 23.02.2006.
(2.) THE revision petitioner/accused has filed C.M.P. No. 415 of 2008 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon P.W. 1/victim stating among other things that the revision petitioner/accused was not fully grown up adult and he could not give instructions to his Counsel to conduct the cross -examination. Though all the witnesses were examined in chief, none of the witnesses was cross -examined on his behalf and therefore, an opportunity may be given to cross -examine all the prosecution witnesses to establish his innocence. The said petition was opposed by the prosecution by contending that at the time of hearing of the application, out of 18 witnesses, 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and it was further pointed out that P.W. 1 was examined on 23.02.2006; P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were examined on 07.06.2006; P.W. 4 to P.W. 7 were examined on 05.07.2006; P.W. 8 to P.W. 10 were examined on 26.07.2006. P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 were examined on 07.12.2006; P.W. 13 was examined on 24.01.2007; P.W. 14 was examined on 27.06.2007; P.W. 15 was examined on 11.07.2007 and P.W. 17 was examined on 05.03.2008 and at the belated point of time only, the petition dated 18.06.2008, came to be filed and no steps have been taken on behalf of the revision petitioner/accused to recall the witnesses within a reasonable time and hence, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
(3.) THE trial Court, has taken note of the facts that now -a -days Section 311 Cr.P.C. is abused which caused unnecessary delay in disposal of the criminal cases and that it is not easy to secure and produce the witnesses before the Court and felt that the reasons stated by the petitioner are not convincing and citing the said reasons, dismissed the petition, vide order dated 17.09.2008.;