1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1797 OF 2009 Bappu @ Umesh Dilip Kamble ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. P. D. Dalvi for Petitioner. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 28TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner has challenged the Order passed by the learned JMFC, Jaysingpur, permitting re-examination of the witness as prayed for by the prosecution. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate making of any application for re-examination. There is no merit in this submission since it is settled law that where a statute confers a power on a Court to do something that power may be exercised by the Court on an application by any of the parties. It cannot be said that the power can only be exercised suo motu. There is also no merit 2 in the submission that the Court could not have exercised its power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. because that Section was not mentioned in the application. Such an application does not therefore become bad in law. It was lastly contended on behalf of the Petitioner that re-examination cannot be permitted to fill up any lacuna. This undoubtedly depends upon the facts of each case. In the present case the Magistrate has considered the matter and held that re-examination is necessary. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the Petitioner will have a right of cross-examination. There is no miscarriage of justice. Petition is dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)