IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47678 of 2008 AMAR SINGH, son of Late Mahadeo Singh, village Madhuri, PS Purushottampur, District West Champaran. Versus The State of Bihar, 1. Samsad Ahmad, son of Late Sheikh Suleman, village Madhuri, PS Purshottampur, District West Champaran – opp. parties. 3 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 22.9.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, West Champaran in S.T. N. 668/1998, arising out of Mainatand (Purushottampur) PS Case No. 86/1998, by which he has refused to recall PW 8, the Investigating Officer of the case for cross examination in this case. On 9.12.2008 PW 8 was examined. Counsel for opposite party no.2 could not appear within time and as such PW 8 was discharged. Subsequently on 9.12.2008 itself the defence (petitioner) filed a petition that he may be allowed to recall PW 8. The application has been dismissed on the ground that the counsel should make himself available for cross examining the witnesses on the date fixed by the court. Undoubtedly the counsel ought to have made himself available for cross examining or else informed the court that the could would be available at a particular time to cross examine the witnesses so that the court would not have faced inconvenience. However, considering that this is a serious case and the Investigating Officer is an informant witness in this case, the order, dated 22.9.2008 is hereby quashed and the defence is allowed to recall PW 8 as a witness. The cost of notice and the summons to PW 8 will 2 be borne by the defence. The court may issue summon and notice to PW 8 at the cost of the petitioner on receipt / production of a copy of this case. This application is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)