@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB :’ HON’BLE ,3HR! JUSTICE PRH‘INKERDIWAKER cxmx. no. 302/2009 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482, OF THE GODE, OF‘ CmMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 "\K Shri V.C.Ottalwar,, counsel for the petiu'oners. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L. for the State. ORAL 01mm » z (18.06.2009) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 26.5.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabixdham in Sfl‘. No. 38/2008 by which the Court below has ordered for recalling the witness Kunti Bai. Contention of the counsel for the applicants is that on the point, for which the said witness is being recalled, the s evidencehas already been lead by the prosecution and the 1. Dhanmj Samami @ Pusapraj aged 26 years 2. Dharamraj @ Darshan aged 38 years 3. Gajraj @ Dhani, aged 22 years 4. Danimm @ Padmraj aged 32 years All are S/o. Jhanglu Ram Satuami, R/o. Sisodia Pam, Village Pandaria, Police Stah'on Pandaria, Tahsil Pandan'a, District Kabixdham (CG) RESPOEENT State of Chham'sgarh, Through Station House O$cen Police Station Pandaria, Disu'ict Kabirdham (CG) prosecution cannot bc permitted to fumll the lacunae in the trial. He further submits that the trial is pending since long and gmat injustice would be caused to the pétitioners if the said witness is m’called. On the other hand, lemned counsel for the State submits that the oxder has been passed strictly in accordance with law and the coult has lightly exercised its juiisdiction. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. ‘ t I hnd no reason to interfere in the oxder under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Pmceduxe. The petition has no substance and is accoxdingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. ' ,Sdl— a i Pfitinker Diwaker Judge ‘ -’ w“, l "