IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1529 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.7.2011. Roshandeep alias Roshan Singh & another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated June 10th, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby application filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for re-calling Paramjit Kaur (PW-2) and Hameer Kaur (PW-3) for further cross-examination was dismissed in case bearing First Information Report No. 67 dated May 24th, 2010 under Sections 376 and 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Baragudha, District Sirsa. 2. By filing application under Section 311 of the Code, the accused-petitioners seek permission to further cross- examine the witnesses on some material questions. This Court has gone through the questions sought to be put, as mentioned in paragraph No.7 of this petition. Paragraph No.7 is reproduced as under:- “7. That no question was asked regarding the bed or cot on which complainant/prosecutrix Paramjit Kaur was lying at the time of alleged occurrence. Similarly, no question was asked regarding the bed sheet/mattress on the said bed or cot, nor any question was asked regarding the felling of semen on the said bed or cot. These questions are very necessary for the proper adjudication of the present case.” Criminal Revision No.1529 of 2011 (2) 3. Section 311 of the Code contains a salutary provision that in cases where the evidence of a witness appears to be essential for the just decision of the case, the Court must recall such a witness for the purpose of re-examination, cross examination or for further examination. No doubt, a discretion has been conferred on the Court to summon any person as a witness but simultaneously, an obligation is also cast on the Court to record a conclusion that for just decision of the case, it is essential to recall, re-examine or cross- examine any other witness. 4. The facts of the case in hand show that the questions sought to be put are not essential for the adjudication of the controversy. They are not essential for the just decision of the case. In fact, the application seems to have been moved as a ploy to delay the proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 19.7.2011. SN