IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.942 of 2008 Lakshman Jha son of Radha Krishna Jha, resident of Mohalla-Bhathiyari Sarai, P.S.- Laheria Sarai, District- Darbhanga. ..........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. .............Opposite 1st Party 2. Shri Deo Jha son of late Achyuta Nand Jha. 3. Ganga Jha. 4. Tuna Jha. Both sons of Shrideo Jha All residents of Mohalla-Bhathiyari Sarai, P.S.-Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga. ..........Opposite 2nd Parties ----------- 05 16.08.2011 The informant-petitioner, has preferred this Criminal Revision against the order dated 21st July, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 3, Darbhanga, in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2007, by which he has set aside the order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the learned trial Court in T.R. No. 1627 of 2006 arising out of G.R. No. 2074 of 2000 and the learned Magistrate has been directed to give three consecutive dates to recall the witness for cross-examination. Heard Mr. Ram Bali Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Md. Kamaran, learned counsel for 2nd set opposite parties. 2 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has no occasion to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 8th December, 2006, by which he has refused to recall the prosecution witnesses Kanhaiya Mishra @ Shambhu Narayan Mishra and Ghanshyam Mishra for further cross-examination. It is submitted that the prosecution has already closed its evidence and the case was fixed for defence evidence. During that period a petition was filed on behalf of the accused opposite party that the aforesaid two witnesses Kanhaiya Mishra @ Shambhu Narayan Mishra and Ghanshyam Mishra are professional witnesses, as such, their further cross-examination is necessary. It has been considered by the learned Magistrate that Shambhu Mishra was a complainant and he was also an informant in Ashok Paper Mill P.S. Case No. 11 of 2003, as such, it can not be said that the aforesaid witnesses are professional witnesses and are witnesses in several cases. The learned counsel for the accused- opposite parties submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order in accordance with law and no interference is 3 required. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the order passed by the learned trial Court, it appears that the petition dated 25.09.2004 was filed on behalf of accused to recall Kanhaiya Mishra @ Shambhu Narayan and Ghanshyam Mishra for further cross-examination as they are professional witnesses. The rejoinder to that petition has been filed on behalf of the prosecution that the accused have already cross-examined those witnesses and the accused have filed the petition only to delay the proceeding. The case was fixed for the evidence of defence, and if the defence wants to place some other evidence they are at liberty. It has been further stated that Shambhu Narayan Mishra has lodged the Ashok Paper Mill P.S. Case NO. 03 of 2011 and, as such, it is natural that he has deposed in that case as a witness. It further appears that the learned Magistrate has considered the petition filed by the accused and has rightly rejected the petition to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination. The defence has not made any good ground for the recall of the aforesaid 4 witnesses for further cross examination. In this view of the matter, it was not necessary to recall the two prosecution witnesses for further cross examination. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, stated above, in my opinion the impugned order dated 27th July, 2008 is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The order passed by the learned trial Court dated 08.12.2006 is restored. In the result, this petition is allowed. Safik (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)