CRM-M No. 16028 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 16028 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.5.2010 Darshan Lal and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ajay Singla Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging order dated 30.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-calling PW-1 Vijay Kumar Kohli for further cross-examination was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that certain important questions relating to settlement between the parties had not been put to PW-1 Vijay Kumar Kohli during his cross- examination and due to this reason PW-1 was liable to be summoned for further cross-examination. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Ganesh Roy vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2007 (5) RCR (Criminal) 346, wherein, it was held as under:- CRM-M No. 16028 of 2010 (O&M) 2 “8. Taking the considered view, this Court finds that the petitioner had preferred petition under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure for the recall of the witness PW-1 to further cross-examine on the point of allotment which was inadvertently left as stated on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, no sample of questions was set forth before the Trial judge but it cannot be inferred that it was brought about with the intention to linger the matter. In view of the decisions referred to above and propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court there appears merit in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and hence, is allowed. The order impugned of the trial Court as well as Revisional Court whereby and whereunder a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected is hereby set aside.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or CRM-M No. 16028 of 2010 (O&M) 3 recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” As per the above provision, the Court at any stage of trial may summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. In the present case, PW-1 was recalled for cross-examination on 3.2.2005 and a perusal of Annexure P-3 reveals that the said witness had been cross-examined by the learned defence counsel at length. Now after a long delay, the application has been filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It appears that the application has been filed, due to change of the defence counsel. Since, PW-1 had been duly cross-examined by the defence counsel, learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioners for recalling PW-1 for his further cross-examination. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners fails to advance the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) May 28, 2010 JUDGE anita