IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53873 of 2007 LALLAN DHANGAR, son of Late-Hari Dhangar, resident of village- Hassanpura, Dhangar Toli, Sikta, P.S.-Sikta, District-West Champaran. ……..Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ramashray Sah, son of Late-Hiraman Sah, resident of village- Hassanpura, Dhangar Toli, P.S.-Sikta, District-West Champaran. ……Informant/Opposite Party ----------- 03. 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. The present quashing application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 337 of 1998 arising out of Sikta P.S. Case No. 25 of 1998(G.R. No. 461 of 1998) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner for recall of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 for cross examination. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial was pending since 1998 and no witnesses were coming up. On 18.10.2005, all of a sudden four witnesses appeared in the case and as a result P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not be cross examined and in fact the learned counsel for the defence could not made himself appear to cross examine P.W. 1 and P.W.2 in the case. From the averments made by the counsel for the 2 petitioner in paragraph No. 8 of the Criminal Miscellaneous application, it appears that P.Ws 3 and 4 were cross examined though properly not examined. From perusal of records and the impugned order, it appears that altogether 15 witnesses have been examined. On 12.03.2007 prosecution evidence was closed, thereafter accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. and during course of final argument, on 24.07.2007, an application on behalf of accused for recall for cross examination of the P.W. 1 and 2 has been filed under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. I do not think that the petitioner deserves any sympathetic consideration for recall of the witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. after two years of the cross examination. When they themselves refused to cross examine P.W. 1 and 2. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any merit in this application. The application is dismissed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)