IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.242 of 2008 SHEO SHANKAR SINGH ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND 2. BHOLA GOPE ….. Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 27.11.2008. N.H./ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact is that the witness in question has not yet been discharged. No cross-examination has been done after framing of the charge. The only grievance is that the court below has recalled the witness under the wrong provision of section 37 of the Evidence Act. Section 137 of the Evidence Act is not part of the procedural law. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order. Apparently, the section has wrongly been mentioned. However, the witness is still under the control of the court. He has ample power to permit the prosecution to put further question, if required for ends of justice. In this view of the matter, there appears no merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. However, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it at the earliest. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )