1 REVN 415.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 415 OF 2011 Mr. Suresh Raghunath Sawant. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. Kiran N. Makasare for the Applicant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. Perused the order below Exhibit 93 in Sessions Case No. 667 of 2008 and also the evidence of PW-10 and PW-11 including the cross-examination. 3. This was a second attempt on behalf of the accused to recall the witnesses by exercise of powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judge rejected the same. 4. Mr. Makasare submits that before passing order below Exhibit 93, he was not heard. However, very order informs in paragraph 4 onwards that audience was given to the learned 2 REVN 415.11.sxw Counsel. The earlier Application below Exhibit 91 on the same grounds was entertained by the learned Judge by saddling cost of Rs.1,000/- by order dated 12.07.2011. 5. The recall sought to the two witnesses PW-10 and PW-11 though the learned Counsel feels that omissions are to be brought on record. However, the cross-examination already carried suggest that the witnesses were exhaustively dealt with. 6. The accused was arrested on 15.7.2008 and in Jail. Charge was framed on 6.2.2009. Evidence of PW-1 was started on 20.03.2009. The learned Judge has recorded, PW-1 faced cross-examination running in 30 pages. 7. The reference to the reported Judgments given by Mr. Makasare in the matter of Rajendra Prasad V/s. Narcotic Cell reported in (1999) 6 SCC 110 or to the Judgment in the matter of Mohanlal Somaji Soni V/s. Union of India reported in (1991) SCC (Cri.) 595 informs the situation in which the exercise of powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are to be attended to. If a practice is developed to make application for recall, and thereafter, having recalled the witness, again a feeling is generated witness needs to be again recalled, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the application. In the set of above situation, I do not see any error in the order below Exhibit 93. 3 REVN 415.11.sxw 8. While reading the papers, it is noticed, Exhibit 93 the very application is not tendered by the Applicant. The learned Counsel submits, its certified copy was not furnished. This from perusal of learned Counsel’s own record does not substantiate as the application purportedly moved was for orders at Exhibit 91 only. The office of said Court should have taken care, when order below Exhibit 93 was furnished, to have attached the application moved by the learned Counsel. Petition dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)