1 ndm 34 revn.189.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 189 OF 2010 Rita Mamsingh Singh and ors. ... APPLICANTS Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... RESPONDENT -------- Mr. Sudhir Hardikar for Applicants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for State. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 07 th April, 2010. P.C. 1 The Applicants challenge the order dated 29 th August, 2009 by which the application below Exhibit-46 for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination has been partly allowed and partly disallowed. The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that out of the prosecution witnesses, PW 1, 2, 4 and 7 were not properly cross-examined by the earlier advocate and therefore, it was necessary in the interest of justice to have recalled them. 2 2 The learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order, has allowed the application for recalling of PW 3, 5 and 6, who were not at all cross-examined due to lapses on the part of the counsel, who was appearing earlier. Insofar as the witnesses, whose recalling is rejected are concerned, the said witnesses were already cross-examined and therefore, the application to that extent has been disallowed. 3 Whether a particular witness is properly cross-examined or not, is a purely subjective matter. What is proper cross-examination according to one lawyer may not be a proper examination to the mind of another lawyer. If on this ground the application for recalling witnesses are to be allowed, then it will lead to no end. 4 In that view of the matter, no error could be noticed to warrant interference. Hence rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]