Crl.R No.2633 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R No.2633 of 2009 Date of Order: 5.11.2009 Rashid and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J (ORAL) By filing the instant revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C, petitioners have prayed for setting aside order dated 12.8.2009 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for re-cross-examination of witnesses PW1 Smt Krishna Wanti and PW2 Smt Tarawanti has been dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the aforementioned witnesses were not properly cross examined due to the ngeligence of the counsel for the petitioners and some facts were important for the decision of the case, therefore, the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat has erred in dismissing the application for recalling them and their re-cross examination. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. No material has been placed on record to show that the aforesaid witnesses had Crl.R No.2633 of 2009 #2# not been properly cross examined by the counsel for the petitioners before the trial Court. Not even a whisper has been made or anything suggested with regard to the questions, which have been left out to be asked from the aforesaid witnesses. Learned trial Court has, on examination of the record, rightly recorded a finding that “I find that PW1 Krishnawanti and PW2 Tarwanti had been examined on 5.5.2009 and they have been well cross examined by learned defence counsel. Therefore, I do not find any ground to summon the witnesses for their re-cross examination as there is apprehension of exerting pressure upon witnesses by the accused. Moreover, the accused have not specified the questions which have been left to be asked from the witnesses in absence of which permission sought by accused to re-cross examine the witnesses can not be granted to them.” Even otherwise, the impugned order being an interlocutory order and in view of provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C, learned counsel has not been able to show as to how the present revision petition is maintainable. Dismissed. November 05, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE