{1} Cri. Revision No.177/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Nandkumar Gangadhar Rakshe & Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.D.Kaldate, APP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26 th August 2011 PER COURT: 1. The present Revision Application has been directed against the order dated 12.11.2009 passed below Exhibit-48 in Regular Criminal Case No.35/1997 by JMFC, Shrigonda. 2. Perusal of the proceedings indicates that the said case was filed against in all three accused. When the impugned order came to be passed at that time the trial was in progress against two accused persons. When the present Revision application came {2} Cri. Revision No.177/2011 up for hearing before this Court on 05.08.2011, judgment in the RCC No.35/1997 was already passed on 04.06.2011. In view of the said judgment, this Court, on 05.08.2011, dismissed the revision application against respondents No.1 and 2 and ordered that the revision to proceed only against respondent No.3, against whom the trial has been separated. 3. Heard learned APP for applicant and also perused the impugned order. It appears that the application (Exhibit-48) was for re-examination of the prosecution witness. Perusal of the application clearly indicates that the contents of the same itself are vague. No doubt, re-examination of the witnesses is permitted in law, if it brought on record that certain new material has been brought on record in the cross examination of the witness of which explanation is necessary or during cross examination certain ambiguity is created by the other side. After reading the application (Exhibit-48), I do not find that the application disclose that certain new material is brought in the cross examination of the witness or some ambiguity has been created in his cross examination. In view of all these facts, I do not notice any fault or {3} Cri. Revision No.177/2011 perversity in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision application, which is sans merits, stands dismissed even against respondent No.3. Accordingly, revision application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/crirevn177-11