1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Gurmeet Singh alias Bhola & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.330/2006 against the order dt.19.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, Distt. Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.25/2004. DATE OF ORDER :: May 01, 2006 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.M.K.Garg, for the petitioners. Mr.J.P.S.Choudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal revision petition under section 307/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code` hereinafter), the petitioners have assailed the order dt. 19.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, Distt. Sri Ganganagar (for short `the trial court` hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.25/2004, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under sections 311 and 91 of the Code and under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short `the Evidence Act' hereinafter). 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. A crime report was lodged against the petitioners in the year 2001 and they are facing trial for the offences under sections 307, 376, 365, 342, 120-B I.P.C. The prosecution, in support of its case, has produced evidence and certain documents. The petitioners made statements under section 313 of the Code. After recording the statements of the petitioners under section 313 of the Code, an application under section 311 and 91 of the Code and section 165 of the Evidence Act was moved. By a well reasoned and detailed order, the trial court dismissed the application. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that after the statement of PW.7 was recorded by the trial court, some facts were discovered and therefore, the petitioners seek recalling of PW.8 Vichitra Singh and PW.10 Doongar Chand for cross-examination. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that Sub-Inspector Bahadur Singh and Madan Singh also conducted the investigation of crime report and, therefore, prosecution may be directed to produce these two witnesses. Lastly, it is contended that the court may put a question to PW.8 Vichitra Singh and PW.10 Doongar Chand as also by calling and 3 examining Sub-Inspector Bahadur Singh and Mandan Singh, who also conducted the investigation of crime report. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has supported the order impugned. He submits that if any fact is discovered from the statement of PW.7, it was open for the petitioners to cross-examine PW.8 Vichitra Singh and PW.10 Dungar Chand relating to such fact as they were examined later to that of PW.7. Contention of the petitioners that cross- examination could not be made elaborately is no ground for recalling the witnesses. So far as Sub-Inspector Bahadur Singh and Madan Singh are concerned, they had never been cited as prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution is not obliged to produce them as the prosecution witnesses regarding the question by Judge presiding over the trial court concerned. It is not for the petitioner to compel the Judge to call the witnesses and put a question or order for production of documents but it is for the trial court if it considers fit in order to discover proper or relevant fact, may ask any question to the witnesses when examined. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4 So far as recalling of PW.8 Vichitra Singh and PW.10 Doongar Chand is concerned, they made statements later to that of PW.7 and if any fact, which according to the petitioner, is discovered from the statement of PW.7, it was open for the petitioner to cross-examine PW.8 and PW.10 when they were produced for cross-examination relating to that fact. Both these witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination. The petitioners made a request for recalling these witnesses for cross-examination. The trial court rightly rejected the request of the petitioners for recalling of the witnesses noticed above. So far as production of documents are concerned, there is no evidence that the petitioners at any rate are in power and possession of those documents. So far as submission of negative final report is concerned, it is not in power and possession of PW.8 Vichitra Chand and PW.10 Doongar Singh. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the negative final report had already been before the court and therefore, there is no question of production of such a document. After closing of the prosecution case, the petitioners made statements under section 313 of the Code and if the petitioners wish to lead any evidence in defence, it is open for the petitioners to summon the witnesses when entered into defence. If the petitioners do not choose to do so after the statement under section 313 of the Code, then the prosecution cannot be directed to produce the witnesses or 5 documents on which they did not rely. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. Prayer for interim relief stands rejected. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-