IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C482 NO. 332 OF 2011 Mahendra Singh ….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ……..Respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1. The inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been invoked by the applicant challenging the order dated 29.3.2011 (Annexure –7 to the affidavit), whereby an application moved by the Prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re-examination of witnesses has been allowed. The case of the applicant is that this cannot be done by the Prosecution to fill lacunas in their case. Moreover, it has been done after a lapse of four years. Further, learned counsel for the applicant asserts that on an earlier occasion such an application for re-examination of witnesses was allowed on 17.5.2008, which was challenged by the applicant by filing a revision before the Sessions Judges, Almora and while allowing the revision, it was left open that in case the Prosecution moves a specific question to be asked by the Prosecution, the Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be re- considered. It is a settled principle of law that the Court can examine or re-examine any witness, if the Court feels it 2 necessary to be done in the interest of justice, inasmuch as, the main purpose of a trial is to come to the truth of the matter. In case the Court before whom the trial is going on is of the view that the witness needs to be re- examined, it has power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall such a witness. Definitely, the Courts have placed certain restrictions in this matter but the over all purpose for recalling the witness is always that such an order should serve the interest of justice. Apart from the specific powers for recalling the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the Court has got further powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to put any question to a witness in order to reach the truth of the matter. Since powers exist and there are no plausible reasons so as to assume that these powers have been exercised for any other purpose but for the interest of justice, this Court finds no plausible reasons for interference in this matter. The instant C482 petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.4.2011 Rathour