IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 780 of 2010 Aditiya Nath ` …….Applicant. Versus The Session Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar & another ……Respondents. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial No. 136/2007 State Vs. Aditiya Nath Singh and others, whereby the Sessions Judge has rejected the application moved by the accused-applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re- examining the witness P.W.1, namely, Ravindra Nath Singh. According to the applicant, the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the application for re-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived and is against the provision of law inasmuch as it is in the interest of justice that the witness be re-examined. The facts of the case are that the witness P.W. 1 which has been called for re-examination is the father of the accused-applicant, who has deposed against the applicant. At the time of his examination all the questions including as to whether P.W.1 can properly see or not and as to what is his mental condition, were had been put to P.W.1. According to the Sessions Judge, therefore, there was no occasion for moving an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re- examination of the witness after he has already been examined by the accused-applicant. This Court is entirely in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. It is not an indefeasible right to call a witness for re-examination under 2 Section 311 of Cr.P.C. It is totally a discretion of the Presiding Officer, and if he feels that the witness should not be called again for re-examination, he is justified in passing such order. Learned Sessions Judge has given full reasons as to why under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, re-examination of the witness under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. would not be proper. This Court finds no fault with the impugned order dated 11.8.2010. The present C-482 application is wholly without merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.8.2010 Avneet