IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2011 Shanti Prasad ……… Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State / respondent. Date of Judgment: 28.04.2011 BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE Delay Condonation Application No. 385 of 2011 Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, do not object to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. I have considered the averments thus made and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein for the delay, condone the delay in preferring the revision application. Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2011 By consent of the parties, the revision application is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record. 3. After cross-examination of the Prosecution Witnesses was completed by the counsel engaged by the revisionist, he engaged another counsel. The new counsel advised the revisionist to file an application under Section 311 of the Code for re-cross-examination of those witnesses. The trial court rejected the said application and hence, the present revision application. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Hoffman Andreas Vs. Inspector of Customs, Amritsar, reported in 2001, SCC 2 (Criminal) 1488, for proposition that what the revisionist was seeking is permissible. 5. I do not think that the judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, has any application to the present case. In that case, the counsel, who cross-examined the witnesses of the prosecution, died before the trial was concluded, compelling the accused person to engage a new set of counsel. The new set of counsel had no clue as to why the erstwhile counsel, who died, did not cross-examine the witnesses on the points that they thought they should have been cross-examined, and at the same time, had no opportunity to consult the erstwhile counsel, for by that time, he had died. In the instant case, such a situation will not arise, in as much as the counsel engaged by the revisionist who cross- examined the witnesses is still available for consultation by the counsel engaged by the revisionist at present. 6. There is no doubt that Section 311 of the Code grants enormous power to the Court. Such power, however, can only be exercised by the Court in the interest of justice and not for the purpose of defeating justice. When no reason was furnished in the application made for exercising power under Section 311 of the Code as to why re-cross-examination of the witness is necessary, the Court had no competence to pass any order on the application, made under Section 311 of the Code. Merely because a new counsel has accepted the brief, that is no ground for exercising power under Section 311 of the Code. 7. The revision application fails and the same is dismissed. I have, with great effort, restrained myself from imposing exemplary cost in the matter. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.04.2011 Amit