1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Kirodimal Soni. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.671/2007 ... Date of Order: July 23, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal revision petition under section 397 read with Section 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16-5-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Case No.169/2003, whereby the trial Court partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 of the Code and summoned witness Roshan Lal, whose statement under Section 161 of the Code was recorded. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. A criminal report was lodged by the petitioner with 2 the Police Station and on that crime report, the police investigated the matter and submitted negative final report. However, on notice to the complainant-petitioner, a protest petition was filed by him and on that protest petition, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence and directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to conduct the case. Thus, it is a case to be conducted by the State through the Public Prosecutor. After recording the statements of various prosecution witnesses, the complainant-petitioner moved an application under Section 311 of the Code seeking recalling of witness PW 5 Chaina Ram and two other persons who were not cited in the List of witnesses, namely Robinson Tak and Roshan S/o Indu Teli. The trial Court partly allowed the application and directed to summon witness Roshan as the statement of Roshan under Section 161 of the Code was already on record. So far as witness Robinson Tak is concerned, neither his statement under Section 161 of the Code was on record, nor was he cited as a witness in the calendar of witnesses. He is a photographer, whereas in the list of witnesses, the name of photographer Jai Prakash Pareek has been cited as a witness and he has been cited as witness No.7 in the calendar of witnesses. Thus, the trial Court did not consider it fit to call witness Robinson Tak since the evidence of photographer Jai Prakash Pareek is already on record. So far as witness PW 5 Chaina Ram is concerned, he 3 made his statement and turned hostile. He was subjected to cross-examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The complainant-petitioner seeks to again cross-examine the witness with regard to the statement under Section 202 of the Code, which, according to the trial Court, is not on record. Be that as it may, in my view, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner. The material witness has already been summoned by the trial Court. No case warranting interference in the impugned order in the inherent jurisdiction is made out. The criminal revision is, therefore, dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs