1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.291 OF 2011 Malik Abdul Rashid Momin ...Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. J.D.Khairnar ,adv. For the Petitioner. Ms P.P.Shinde, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP. Petitioner is accused in sessions case no.315 of 2008 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. He is facing trial for the murder of his wife. P.W.2 Yasmin Yusuf Shaikh was examined by the prosecution as sister of the deceased Shabina and she was also cross-examined at length. Accused examined passport officer D.W.1 Yashwant Chavan in defence for production of certain documents in respect with passport of Yasmin . Shaikh. According to the counsel for the petitioner after perusal of the passport, it was revealed to the advocate of the petitioner that the lady, who was examined before the Court as P.W.2 Yasmin Shaikh was only 2 impersonating as such because photograph on the passport of Yasmin Shaikh was of a different lady. Therefore, he moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court to recall said P.W.2 for further cross-examination. That application came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge on the ground that witness was cross-examined at length and her identity was not disputed and she being sister of the deceased, accused was expected to know the said lady. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement before this Court that said witness had come in burkha and, therefore accused had no opportunity to see her face. Advocate was not acquainted with her, therefore, he had not reason to dispute her identity at that time but after he saw the photograph, it was revealed to the advocate that some other lady had appeared as witness in place of Yasmin Shaikh. 3 As the accused is facing trial for the serious offence of murder and very relevant question has been raised by him, in my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to allow the application and to recall said witness, who was examined as P.W.2. 4 Therefore, in the interest of justice, petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Sessions Court on 18.1.11 is hereby quashed and Sessions Court is directed to recall said witness. 3 Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)