1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2011 Sonu @ Rajendra Kumar S/o Babu Ram R/o Jhankat, P.S. Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar …..…Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ……….Respondent Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.07.2011, passed by Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar) in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2009, whereby said court has rejected the application moved by the revisionist under section 311 Cr.P.C.. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and other accused are facing trial in respect of offences punishable under section 498A, 307, 304B IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition 2 Act, 1961. P.W. 1 Raju Saxena, P.W. 2 Sukhrani and P.W. 3 Sunita Devi have already been examined and cross-examined before the trial court. After close of their evidence, the revisionist moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C., that he wants to further cross-examine the three witnesses without disclosing what specific question was left out. 4. If the application under section 311 Cr.P.C., is allowed in the above circumstances, it would encourage winning over the witnesses, and make the trial a futile exercise. That is not the spirit of the law. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. 5. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this revision is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 13.09.2011