7^ •^wwt<, 'S^W^, I'sfwwy. ^.M.P ^- jro/oj sn^TTiR? Crt^?) t5»S :-di?a!te' ^^^' •'a.t,-tgSSs APPLICANT MunkU Rain Sarttu, S/o S.R. Sarthi, versus RBSPONDBNT aged Nas.ai Raiga ytate Magis about 63 years, Chakradhar Kaser Pai'a, Raifiai'h, Distt. (>t cnnattisgarn, tnrougti uistrict ^rals, Distt Jashpur (CG) PETITION UNDBR SBCrI SB: HON. SHSI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J 2422009 Hlin Mamnctra snnvasl Maneesh Shanna, Advocate, foit Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel La^ver, for the State. The applicant has filed SEFTOflftT iWRff'if'fs'St Tf'iR?'7 ^aflgiisn^i 482 OF THB CODB OF ava, Sr. Advocate with Shri the applicant. me mstant appucatlon under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. and pra^ed for du'ection to the ti'ial Court to recaB prosecution witness iNo. 21 Shri B.D. Pradhan for cross-exaiiiination as the adplication of the applicant for 1 adjouniment and anotner lappUcation tor recalling the prosecution wimess B.D. Pradllan have been reieeted vide order -.1 i dated 7-2-2007 (Ai^nexure A-1~U Leamea coiuisel tor Ule applicant su&mits Uiat me applicant was allowed oppcjirtzinit^' to cross-exaiiune six prosecution witnesses by uys Court vide order 2-2-2009 ^^T^" ^^^: ;^;^JT;[T5RK"|q—-;;S/95—-11 /290<i:—-1-fitLOOO. ^' .^' '•' -3-3f -^IWW^, -g-dl^'l^, felW1< (7y. m.P. ^o. jro/63 sfl^i'^w ('Nil«i<ti) snt^'^i^w 'rTSff 411^$! ff)^i-^ 1 ^^ss^ L^tE^£?'' TraferitTWRB if is'st'(f^ST? '^affimsn^r ('Annexure A-2). The matter w4.s fixed for evidence on 5-2-2009. Prosecution Witness B.D. Pr^dhan appeared as a witness as non-bailable wairaiit was issu^d against liim for liis appearance on 5-2-2009. An application w for adloiuTunent on the grojiind that six witnesses, whose exaniuiauon-ui-cliiet lias alreat examuiea as per orcler ot u~t appropnate to cross-exam.me examuiation ot Uie above sixl rejected and after recording rTadnan, it lias Deen observecl argued ttiat on 7-2-2009, the as filed on behalf of the accused ly been recorded, are to be CTOSS- :e riigfi Court ancl it would De ^itness B.R. Fl-adhan only after witnesses. The application was the examination-in-chief of B.D. fhat "the counsel appeanng for the accused does not cross-ex^inine the witness and, therefore, opportunlty ot cross-exaintnaRion is closed". It was further appticatioii tilea by tne Assistant Public Prosecutor under Sectioti 311 of Cr.P.C. was ailowed and fhe prosecution was permitlled to examine two additional witnesses. | Leamed counsel for uie applicant subniits that fhe cross-examination ot prosecution wimess B.D. Pracilian is necessary and, therefore, the 'Xrial Court be directed to recau prosecution witaess B.D. Pradllan for fui-ther cross-examtaation -._.—A._...._.. WS 311^1 **<i* slr '•~ r/ -3:5q ^ll^ld.M, 'gTftWl^, is|rtl'H^< 3n^r'q^7(^it3sr<^} sftl^i^l^l ^II^^ ^f fS^i <F-i1*-$i ^siRra aii^ .J. and me appucant De auowj examine l-um in the mterest <j>fjustice. The applicant is prepai'ed to bear ttie cost tor simunctung tne prosecution witness B.D. Praanan. Leanied comisel for ftie State submits that he has no oDiection fl one last oppor!|iiruty is allowed to the appiicant accused to cross-exauune The applicant is allowed on^ ;d one last opportunity to cross- Uie prosecution witnesses B.D. Pradfian. 'l'aiang mto consideratlon the tacts and circumstances of the case and submission ofljhe respective paities, prayer ofthe applicant to recall the pro^ecution witness B.D. Pradhan is allowed and it is directed tbat fhe trial Court shall recall the prosecution wimess B. D, Pi^adliaii at the cost of the applicant. last opportunity to cross-examuie the above witnesses and 1(10 further adjoumment shaU be yanted for fhe above purpojse at the instance of the accused applicant. T'he instant application |is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge