IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42825 of 2007 NEWA RAI, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LAHERIYA TOLA, P.S. ATHAMAL GOLA, DISTRICT- PATNA……………………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…………………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 2. 9.1.2009. Heard Sri Bhim Sen Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner, who is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No.1397 of 1998 arising out of Athamal Gola P.S. Case No.11 of 1998, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 5.6.2007 passed therein by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Barh, whereby he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to recall P.W.6, Dr. Yadu Nandan Prasad, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It appears from the impugned order that the statement of the accused was recorded as far back as on 2.8.2005 and from 11.11.2005 the aforesaid Sessions Trial was posted for hearing the arguments. However, on 5.6.2007 the aforesaid petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was belatedly filed for recall of P.W.6 who according to the learned counsel for the petitioner had not been cross examined in full and some questions remained to be put to him. Apparently, P.W.6, the doctor, has been examined and cross examined and was then discharged. The defence in course of cross examination is expected to put all relevant questions to the witnesses and in case the defence counsel was remiss in putting questions to the - 2 - witnesses the same was not a cause for his recall. Even otherwise there was ample time for them to have filed a petition instead of waiting for the statement to be recorded under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and thereafter filing a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the witnesses and that too when the aforesaid Sessions Trial has been pending for arguments ever since 11.11.2005. Apparently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner on cogent reasonings and I find no fault therewith which may call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby upheld and this application is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)