IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2009 Ravi Gupta S/o Sarvesh Gupta R/o Ward No. 30, Khatima, P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ...…………. Respondent Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This revision is directed against the order dated 04.09.2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 2007, whereby said court has rejected the applications No. 55 B/1 and 55 B/2, moved by the accused. 3) Brief facts of the case are that revisionist is facing trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 302, 323, 506 of I.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. It appears that P.W. 1 Sudha Pathak and P.W. 2 Sumeet Pathak have been 2 examined by the trial court, and the two witnesses were subjected to cross examination. It appears that revisionist moved applications No. 55 B/1 and 55 B/2 before the trial court for recalling the said witnesses for further cross examination. It is not a case where opportunity to cross examination was not given, nor is it a case where cross examination was not done. The witnesses have already been cross examined. The trial court has rejected the applications moved by the revisionist for sufficient reasons. If the recall of the witnesses who have already been examined and cross examined is allowed leniently, it would encourage winning over of the witnesses, and make the trial a mockery. I agree with the trial court that the applications for further cross examination moved by the revisionist were liable to be rejected. 4) Therefore, the revision is dismissed summarily. (Urgency Application No. 923 of 2011 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 28, 2011. H. Negi 3