IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1202 of 2010 Praveen Balmiki. …..…Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …...…Respondents. Present: Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. T.C. Agarwal, AGA for State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned AGA for State of Uttarakhand. Heard. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide which application of the applicant filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW5 Mohd. Kamil, has been rejected. It is pleaded that earlier counsel for the applicant, who had cross examined PW5 Mohd. Kamil, could not put certain questions with regard to identity of the accused and incident. A perusal of the cross examination of PW5 Mohd. Kamil shows that he has been cross examined at length by the counsel for the applicant as well as by the prosecution. 2 Whatever questions learned counsel for the applicant wanted to put, he should have put at the relevant time. The only ground given by the counsel for the applicant to recall PW5 Mohd. Kamil is that counsel, who was engaged earlier by the applicant, could not properly cross-examine the witness and no other ground has been mentioned to recall the witness. This court is not in agreement with the argument, as it will open a pandora’s box. Tomorrow applicant may move another application to once again recall the witness on the ground that previous counsel could not cross examine the witness properly and newly engaged counsel would like to put more questions to the witness, which cannot be a ground to recall the witness. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) 16.12.2010 SKS