HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 43 of 2004 Smt. Kuldeep Kaur W/o Sri Har Pal Singh. -----Applicant/ Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand. ------- Respondents None for the revisionist. Sri Harish Pujari, learned A. G.A. for the State. Dated: 6th May 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the order dated 17.01.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial no. 388 of 2002 State vs. Kuldeep Kaur and others, whereby the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application moved by the accused/revisionist u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 Jagtar Singh, PW-2 Gurmeet Kaur @ Gopi and PW-3 Pyara Singh, named in the charge sheet. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that Sessions Trial no. 388 of 2002 State vs. Kuldeep Kaur and others u/s 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar was pending disposal before the District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. The prosecution, in order to prove its case had examined some witnesses. Thereafter, the accused/revisionist moved application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 Jagtar Singh, PW-2 Gurmeet Kaur @ Gopi and PW-3 Pyara Singh, named in the charge sheet. The Trial Court while exercising power conferred u/s 311 Cr.P.C. has rejected the application moved by the accused/revisionist vide impugned order dated 17.01.2004, which is the order impugned in the instant revision. 3. The impugned order has been assailed inter-alia on the ground that due to some inadvertent omission, some important questions have been left for being asked from the above witnesses, therefore application for recalling the witnesses was moved for being further cross-examination and the learned Trial Court has committed a mistake in rejecting the application. 4. None is present for the revisionist. List has been revised, but no one has responded for the revisionist. I have heard Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and perused the record. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State has submitted that the Trial Court is justified in passing the order impugned as the accused/revisionist has been provided ample opportunity to cross- examine the said witnesses and if the prosecution fails to prove its’ case, certainly the benefit will go to the accused persons. 6. Otherwise also on perusal of the record and after going through the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: