IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36370 of 2009 ALAKH DEV PANDEY S/O LATE ANIRUDH PANDEY,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GHUSIYAR, POLICE STATION- SANGRAMPUR , DISTT – EAST CHAMPARAN..........................................................................................Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SAUDAGAR MAHTO, S/O LATE UMRAO MAHTO, VILL - PANCH BHISAWA , P.S. – SANGRAMPUR , DISTT - EAST CHAMPARAN........................................Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 21.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.09.2009 by which the court below has allowed the application filed on behalf of the injured Saudagar Mahto to recall P.W.1 for the purposes of cross-examining him on the point of compromise without touching the merit of the case. The court below has allowed the application on payment of a cost of Rs. 200/-. The informant objected to the cross- examination of the injured as he demolished the case of the prosecution under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. These aspects of the matter would be considered by the trial court at the end of the trial while taking the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is always open for the court below in the interest of justice to allow a particular witness to be recalled or re-cross examined. In the result, I see no illegality in the order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the A.D.J. IV, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 2 411 of 1997. This application is dismissed. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)