IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Petition No. 70 of 2010 Gambheer Singh and 3 others ...…………. Petitioners [ Versus State of Uttarakand and another ...…………. Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Brief Holder for he State. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.01.2010, passed by the trial court (Addl. Sessions Judge, Rishikesh), in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2001, whereby the application 156-A, moved on behalf of the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., has been dismissed. 3) Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. gives a discretionary power to the court to summon any person as a witness or to recall or re-examine any person already examined. The petitioners are facing trial in respect of offences 2 punishable under Section 452, 376, 506 of I.P.C. The sessions trial is pending, since 2001. Perusal of the statement of the witness sought to be recalled and re- examined shows that the witness was examined and cross-examined way back on 24.01.2004. The application 156-A appears to have been moved before the trial court after five years at the stage of arguments. Though, the application could be moved at any stage, but the trial court who is the best judge to appreciate the facts, has opined that the application has been moved simply to linger the proceedings. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that identity of P.W. 1 Mamta is doubtful, as her parentage is different to the one who lodged the first information report, but the record shows that the petitioners had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and she was cross-examined at length. The trial court has observed that even at the stage of 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners did not raise any point as to the identity of the witness. 5) In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 16th of January 2010, passed by the trial court, in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2001, whereby the application 156-A, moved by the accused / petitioners, was rejected. Therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may 3 argue as to the doubtful identity of P.W. 1 Mamta before the trial court, and the trial court is at liberty to assess the same on the basis of evidence already recorded, while passing the judgment in the sessions trial. (Urgency Application No. 584 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 15, 2010. H.Negi