IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Applciation No. 703 of 2008 Shri Krishna Pal and others ...….. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ..……. Respondents Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan, Advocate for the he petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent/State. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for the respondent/State. 2. Criminal Application No. 2841 of 2008 is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being taken up today for final disposal. 3. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 23/08/2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (First F.T.C.), Haldwani in S.T. No. 94 of 2005. 4. The impugned order was passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge on the Application 86 Kha in which the accused/applicants have sought the relief to recall PW1 Ram Charan and PW2 Chet Ram whose evidence has been recorded on 04/03/2006. 5. The accused/applicants moved application alleging therein that certain facts have been stated by PW3 Nano and PW4 smt. Rukmani due to which new story has been developed in this case, as such, the accused/applicants want to cross examine PW1 Ram Charan and PW2 Chet Ram. Objection was filed against the said application. It was stated that the evidence of PW1 Ram Charan and PW2 Chet Ram has been closed on 04/03/2006. Examination-in-chief was recorded on 04/03/2006 and the cross examination was deferred at the request of the defence and it was concluded on 06/05/2006. Thereafter, evidences of the five witnesses have already been recorded by the prosecution. The statement of the accused/applicants has already been recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The present application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the accused/applicants to recall PW1 Ram Charan and PW2 Chet Ram. After hearing the said application, the learned trial court has unequivocally held that the accused/applicants have not stated in their application why the witnesses are being recalled and what is the new story which the accused/applicants want to contradict with PW1 Ram Charan and PW2 Chet Ram. The said application was rejected by the impugned order. 6. Heard Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Brief Holder for the State. 7. Section 311 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that any person can be recalled or re-examined at any stage if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. It is the mandate of the Parliament that before passing any order of recall and re-examination of the witness, the Court must be satisfied that it is essential to the just decision of the case. The application must indicate what are the reasons for which the accused/applicants want to re-examine the witnesses. In the instant case, the accused/applicants had not stated what questions are to be asked to the witnesses who are to be recalled. He has not stated what is the new story propounded by the two witnesses. The application did not contain any reason as to why cross examination is essential for the just decision of the case. 8. In view of the above, I do no find any fault with the findings recorded by the learned trial court. The petition devoids of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 19.11.2008 Shiv