1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3427 OF 2009 Manojkumar Tejraj Jain v. The State of Mah. & anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. B.N. Mohta Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. A.S. Sonare, A.P.P. for Respondent no.1. Mr. G.S. Shukla Advocate for Res. no.2. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 15 th JANUARY,_2010. Heard. Order below Ex.69 dated 23.9.2009 in Criminal Case No. 4436 of 2007 granting permission for recalling the complainant for further cross- examination at the behest of the accused is under challenge in the present application. 2. In support of the application, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the application was clearly after thought in the sense that the statement of accused was even recorded and not only that his evidence was also recorded. In order to protract the trial, he filed application for recalling the complainant for further cross-examination on a non-existent ground. 2 According to the learned counsel, the power under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be utilized to fill in the lacuna, as was asked in the application. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. 3. Per contra, Mr.Shukla learned counsel for respondent no.2 – contesting respondent vehemently opposed the application and argued that the order is discretionary one and cannot be interfered. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. I have gone through the impugned order. Having heard learned counsel for rival parties, I find that the accused has given good reason which is sufficient to recall the witness. After all, as per criminal jurisprudence, the accused has to be given full opportunity till the end of the trial. No prejudice would be caused if the complainant is allowed to be further cross-examined. Impugned order is discretionary order and cannot be interfered with in the inherent powers of this Court. In the result, I find no error in the order passed by the trial Court which is under challenge in this application. Hence, this application is dismissed. JUDGE /TA/ 3