[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1050/2005 SMT. MEHAR DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Date: 22/02/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Onkar Singh Lakhawat for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The present criminal misc. petition is under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 16.03.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Ajmer in Criminal Revision No. 27/2005, whereby the Revisional Court while dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner, upheld the order dated 24.02.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that trial of the case is pending. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in Jagdish Vs. State of [2] Rajasthan (107), reported in 1993(2) R.L.W. 530, wherein this Court has observed that recalling the witness- Witness is the investigating officer who is required to prove the contradictions and omissions appearing in the police statements of the prosecution witnesses- This is essential for the just decision of the case and thus this Court has held that the witness be recalled. He also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Podda Narayana and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a statement recorded by the police during the investigation is not at all admissible in evidence and the proper procedure is to confront the witness with the contradictions when they are examined and then ask the Investigating Officer regarding those contradictions. Reliance has further been placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Chokha Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1993(2) R.L.W. 74, wherein this Court has held that the Court can summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person at any stage, if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. [3] I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties, carefully gone through the orders impugned passed by the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court and considered the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial Court as well as the Revisional Court considered each and every aspect as the Court below has observed that earlier vide order dated 02.02.2005 liberty was given to the petitioner to produce such witnesses at its own in defence but the petitioner failed to produce any such witness in defence and also not able to show that recalling the witness is essentially required for just decision of the case and since the opportunity provided to the petitioner has not been availed by him, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the trial Court and the same has been upheld by the Revisional Court vide order impugned dated 16.03.2005 observing that the order of the trial Court is just and legal and the same requires no interference by the Revisional Court. Thus, concurrent findings have been given by both the Court below which require no interference by this Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [4] Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails and the same stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/