w H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminai MP. No. 445 6f 2010 Petitioner BD. Pradhan SK) Late Shri ML. Pradhan, aged about 66 years, R/o 3-130, Raj Kishor Nagar, Bilaspuf, Déstrict BHaspur (CG) -Ver5us- Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Jashpur (CG) 2. Munku Ram Sarthi S/o Late SR. Sarthi, aged about 64 years, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Kaserpara, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) (Petition uls 482 of the Cede cf Criminal Procedure, 1973 ) Sinqle Bench : Hon’bie shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. _ :w 16.3.2011 Mr. BAP. Pradhan‘ petitioner in perSon. ” Mr. Qamrui Aziz‘ Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent N0.1. Mr. Ashish Surana, counsel for respondent No.2. By this petition under Seetion 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. the petitioner has prayed for reviewing the order dated 24.2.2009 {Annexure P/2) passed in Cr.M.P.No.100/09 and direction to the trial Court to examine the petitioner afresh by declaring his evidence recorded on 5.2.2009 as nuil and void. 2 Briefiy stated. facts of the case are that in Sessions Trial No.35/05. State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Munku Ram Sarthi, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur. the petitioner appeared as a prosecution witness on 5.2.2009. The prayer of the accused for adjournment for cross-examining the above witness was rejected. However, on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. fiied by accused Munku Ram Sarthi, this Court, vide order dated 24.2.2009, ailowed the prayer of the accused to recaii prosecution witness BD. Pradhan and the accused was allowed one last opportunity to cross- examine the above witness, with a rider that no further adjournment shall be granted for the above purpose at the instance of the accused/applicant. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for reviewing the abeve arder. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under {EVleWZ 5. indisputabiy, the order under review has been passed on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. of accused Munku Ram Sarthi against the order of the triai Court and the petitiener is only a prosecutien witness in the criminal trial and as such, he has no locus standi for filing the instant review petition. Even otherwise, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner if the accused is permitted to cross-examine him. 6. For the aforesaid reasons. l am of the opinion that the order dated 24.2.2009 is strictly in accordance with law; there is no substance in this petition, the same deserves to be and is, accordingiy, dismissed. 1 Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra Judge