Bombay High Court
SHIVANNA SHEVA SAJJAN, PRESENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTORY, COLVALE, BARDEZ GOAversusTHE STATE OF GOA, THR. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ORS
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- AMIT S JAMSANDEKAR
Holding
The application under Section 311 CrPC is dismissed as untimely and without justification, and the order of the Children’s Court is upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, Shivanna Sheva Sajjan, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order of the President of the Children’s Court, Panaji, which rejected his application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to recall the child victim for cross‑examination in a case involving offences under IPC Section 377, the Goa Children’s Act, and the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged on 17‑05‑2018 and the victim was examined on 06‑12‑2018, but the petitioner’s counsel did not cross‑examine the victim at that time. After a delay of nearly five years, the petitioner filed the recall application on 14‑02‑2024 without providing any justification. The High Court held that the application was untimely, lacked any reason, and could not be permitted under the protective provisions of the POCSO Act and the Goa Children’s Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding no arbitrariness in the Children’s Court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking recall of a child victim for cross‑examination can be entertained after a delay of five years.
- Whether the protective provisions of the POCSO Act and the Goa Children’s Act preclude such a delayed application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311
- Goa Children’s Act — s. 8
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 377
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Witness Recall
- Cross‑Examination
- POCSO
- Child Protection
- Procedural Delay
- Section 311 CrPC
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:951 Shivanna Sheva Sajjan
Vs.
State & Others
__________________________________________________
6 WPCR 129 of 2026
Esha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 129 OF 2026
SHIVANNA SHEVA SAJJAN … PETITIONER
~ VERSUS ~
STATE & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
A PPEARANCES :
for the Petitioner Mr. Ashay Priolkar
for the Respondents Mr. Nikhil Vaze, APP
CORAM : AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
DATED : 30th APRIL 2026
P.C:
1. Office to waive the office objections, if any, and register the Petition.
2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated
25.04.2024, passed by the President of the Children’s Court for the
State of Goa. By the impugned order, the Children’s Court, Panaji, has
rejected the Petitioner’s Application under Section 311 of the Code of
Page 1 of 3
April 30, 2026
Shivanna Sheva Sajjan
Vs.
State & Others
__________________________________________________
6 WPCR 129 of 2026
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), by which the Petitioner sought to
recall the witness (the Victim) for cross-examination. The FIR came to
be filed on 17.05.2018 bearing No. 155/2018 for an offence punishable
under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 8 of the Goa
Children’s Act and Sections 4, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
3. The Victim was examined by the Prosecution on 06.12.2018. Though
the Petitioner-Accused was represented by a Lawyer, the record clearly
indicates that the Victim was not cross-examined by the Petitioner’s
Advocate on 06.12.2018.
4. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Application on 14.02.2024 i.e. almost
after a period of five years, seeking recall of the Victim for cross-
examination.
5. Heard Mr. Priolkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.
Vaze, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State
and perused the record.
6. The Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is
clearly without any justification. There is no explanation as to why the
Application was filed almost after a period of five years. The
Application was filed in the most casual manner, which cannot be
justified on any ground. Therefore, the learned President of the
Children’s Court has rightly rejected the Petitioner’s Application. In
Page 2 of 3
April 30, 2026
Shivanna Sheva Sajjan
Vs.
State & Others
__________________________________________________
6 WPCR 129 of 2026
any case, considering the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Goa
Children’s Act, the Application filed without any reasons and
justification, particularly after five years, cannot be allowed. The order
of the President of the Children’s Court is a well-reasoned order, and
I do not find any arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order.
7. In view thereof, the Petition is dismissed.
8. No order as to costs.
9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or
email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ]
Page 3 of 3
Signed by: ESHA SAINATH April 30, 2026
VAIGANKAR
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 30/04/2026 14:42:41
Checking your session…