IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11150 of 2010 1. ARJUN PRASAD SON OF SRI SWAMINATH PRASAD 2. SHEOPDUTT YADAV SON OF AYODHYA CHOUDHARY BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALUA, P.S. GUTHANI, DISTRICT-SIWAN. --PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --OPP.PARTY _______ For the Petitioners : M/s Ajoy Kr. Thakur & Amir Alam For the State : Mr. Ajoy Mishra, APP 2 07.05.2010 Heard Sri Ajoy Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Ajoy Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sesions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st, Siwan in Sessions Trial no. 511 of 2007 refusing the prayer to recall four witnesses, that is, P.W.3, Nagina Yadav, P.W.4, Suganti Devi, P.W.5, Ram Swarup Yadav, and P.W.6, Munna Yadav for their further cross- examination only for limited purpose of drawing the attention of the witnesses regarding their earlier statements during investigation recorded under Section 161 of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that these witnesses were examined and discharged after through cross examination roughly two years ago but it is submitted that inadvertently their attentions could not be drawn as regards to their earlier statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when the defect was detected prayer seeking jurisdiction of the trial court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked but the court below has refused the prayer. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned order, submitted that if the petitioners on their own risk get one single opportunity to draw the attention of the witnesses towards their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure interest of justice may be served but at the same time they should not be given a weapon in their hands to linger the case. Considering the facts and circumstances and rival contentions, taking further into consideration the statements of the witnesses as mentioned in petition filed before the court below on 16.1.2010, it seems essential that 3 the petitioners be given one opportunity at their risk. Witnesses may be recalled fixing one single date for limited purpose confined to drawing their attention towards such statements made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No further opportunity should be given to the parties to delay the case and, accordingly, petition stands disposed of. Simultaneously, trial court is directed to disposed of the case preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad