Cop Loses Bid to Another Cross-examination in Pocso Case

Hyderabad: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court refused to recall prosecution witnesses sought by a police inspector facing trial in a Pocso case, holding that witnesses cannot be recalled merely to cure omissions in cross-examination. Inspector Bandari Sampath had approached the court challenging an order passed in November 2025 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act at Hanamkonda.

The trial court dismissed his application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking recall of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination related to the case. It was the case of the prosecution that petitioner, who used to be a cybercell inspector in Bhupalpally, allegedly misbehaved with a minor on several occasions, besides allegedly threatening her with consequences if she disclosed the incidents. Based on a complaint lodged in March 2024 at the Kakatiya University Campus police station, a case was registered and the petitioner was arrested the same day and remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet, and the matter proceeded to trial before the Pocso Special Court at Hanamkonda.

The petitioner contended that during the earlier cross-examination he was in judicial custody and could not properly instruct his counsel, due to which several material questions were not put to the witnesses. He therefore sought recall of the witnesses for further cross-examination. The judge noted that the witnesses had been cross-examined and that the trial had reached the stage of defence arguments. The judge observed that the petitioner had earlier sought recall of some witnesses and such requests were already considered by the trial court and challenged before the High Court in earlier proceedings. The judge held that merely claiming that the earlier counsel did not effectively cross-examine the witnesses or engaging new counsel could not be a valid ground to recall witnesses again. The judge also observed that under the Pocso Act, a child witness should not be repeatedly called to testify before the court. Finding no illegality in the order passed by the trial court, the judge dismissed the criminal petition.

HC relief for advocate from Bar Council suspension

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court suspended the operation of a one-year suspension imposed on an advocate by Bar Council of Telangana, observing that the action in suspending the enrollment without issuing prior notice or granting an opportunity of hearing was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The writ petition was filed by advocate Mekala Srinivas Yadav, challenging the action taken by the disciplinary committee in November 2025.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority passed the suspension order without issuing prior notice and without granting the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself, rendering the action illegal and without jurisdiction. Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the decision was taken pursuant to a resolution of the general body of Bar Council, which resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the advocate. It was contended that the Bar Council had the power to initiate proceedings suo motu under the Advocates Act, 1961, and that the suspension was part of the disciplinary process.

The judge expressed serious concern over the procedure adopted by the authorities. It was observed that although the Bar Council was empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it could not suspend enrollment without complying with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice and providing a fair opportunity of hearing. The judge noted that Section 35 itself contemplated adherence to principles of natural justice, and any disciplinary action affecting the professional rights of an advocate must necessarily be preceded by due notice and hearing. Taking strong exception to the impugned action, the judge reprimanded the respondents and suspended the operation of the one-year suspension order, directing the Bar Council authorities to file their responses.

MBBS student seeks fifth attempt to pass exam

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ petition challenging the action of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences in not permitting a first-year MBBS student to appear for a fifth attempt in the subject of Anatomy, while extending such relaxation to students of earlier academic batches. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by a first-year MBBS student of Deccan College of Medical Sciences. The petitioner contended that he was admitted to the course in the academic year 2022–23 and had cleared two subjects but failed in Anatomy.

According to him, he appeared for the examination four times in 2024 but could not pass the subject, allegedly due to ill-health and post-Covid complications which affected his preparation. It was pointed out that the petitioner requested the college authorities to permit him to appear for the examination for a fifth time as a last opportunity, assuring that he would clear the subject. The request was rejected on the ground that the rules framed by the National Medical Commission and the university did not permit a fifth attempt. The petitioner challenged the circular issued by the National Medical Commission and the Board Circular issued by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board, under which an additional fifth (mercy) attempt was permitted only to students admitted during the academic years 2019-20 to 2020-21. He contended that the benefit of the additional attempt was not extended to students of later batches including him, though all students pursue the same MBBS course, syllabus and examinations. It was alleged that denial of the same benefit to the petitioner was arbitrary, and illegal, as similarly placed students of earlier academic years were granted one additional attempt, while students admitted in 2022-23 were denied the same relaxation.

The petitioner claimed that in one instance another student was permitted to appear again, but the same relief was not granted to him. The petitioner submitted that he made a representation to the Deccan College of Medical Sciences and Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences however no action was taken. The respondents contended that the fifth mercy attempt was granted only to the 2019-20 and 2020-21 batches due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as regular classes were disrupted, many classes were conducted online, and several students could not attend classes or examinations due to illness, quarantine and isolation norms. The respondents contended that the fifth attempt was an exception; it is not a precedent to be given to batches after the Covid-19 pandemic. After hearing both parties at length, the judge posted the matter for orders on Monday.