IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32003 of 2009 Yogendra Prasad Versus State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2 22.12.2011 Heard Mr.Dhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned consel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2009 for Cr.Rev.No.111 of 2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari whereby the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner, has upheld the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by Sri S.P. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Complaint Case No. C- 1214 of 2000(Trial No.659 of 2006) whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to reject the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’). The reasons on which the learned Courts below have rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code is manifest from the perusal of the order itself. It so appears that a similar petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for recall of the witness on 11.03.2002 and which was allowed with direction to the petitioner to produce and examine the witness namely, Sakhichand Bhagat. The petitioner never took any steps for examination of the said witness and the evidence was closed. Thereafter, again a similar petition was filed on 10.02.2003 which was rejected on the same day. A third petition was filed on 28.04.2003 for recall of the order dated 2 10.02.2003. In absence of any provision under the Code for recall or review of its order, the petition was dismissed on 28.04.2003. A revision was filed against the said order which was also rejected by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari by order dated 08.10.2004. Not being satisfied a 5th attempt is being made by the petitioner by filing of an application on 27.01.2005 seeking re- examination of witnesses. In view of the circumstances taken note of hereinabove, the same was rejected by the order dated 11.12.2006 and affirmed by the revisional Court in its order dated 21.04.2009. Regard being had to the circumstances it is manifest that the attempt of the petitioner is primarily to delay the proceeding. No interference is called for in the impugned orders. The application is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)