Crl. Rev. 277 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 277 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.03.2011 Shakti @ Vijay & Others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dheer, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Faridabad by which the application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that PW4, PW5 and PW12 were examined before the trial court and at that time they were under the judicial custody and as such they were under the pressure of the police, therefore, they could not depose correctly. Now they want to disclose the correct facts before the court and as such they be recalled for further cross-examination. The application was contested by the prosecution. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and I have gone through the record. After having gone through the record, I find that the statements of PW4 and PW5 were recorded on 11.08.2009 and on that date neither the Crl. Rev. 277 of 2010 2 statement of the Investigating Officer nor any other Police Officer was recorded meaning thereby that on that date i.e. 11.08.2009 when the statements of PW4 and PW 5 were being recorded by the trial court, no Police Officer/Official was present and, therefore, the question of making statement before the court by PW4 and PW5 under the influence of police does not arise. The record reveals that these three witnesses i.e. Mukesh Kumar son of Mahender Singh, Mukesh Kumar son of Nathi Singh and Ram Kumar @ Lala son of Mahender Singh sent letters through Jail Superintendent seeking their re-examination but the said request was declined by the learned trial court. Once the request of these witnesses for their re-examination is declined by the trial court, the prayer of the petitioner for recalling of the witnesses who had already been examined and cross examination by the defence cannot be accepted. Under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the trial court can recall or re-examine any person or witness if it finds that the statement/evidence of such witness is essential for the just decision of the case. In the opinion of the trial court, re-examination of the aforesaid three witnesses is not essential for the just decision of the case as in the wisdom of the trial court these witnesses were not under the influence or pressure of the police and they have deposed without any fear or undue influence. Therefore, the question of their re-examination to fill up the lacuna is not justified. The learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by exercising its judicial discretion. As a sequel to my above discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE March 21, 2011 divyanshi