1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1934 OF 2009 Mr.Harbhajansingh Kohli ..Petitioner versus Mr.Jasbirsingh Amriksingh Sethi & Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.Rohan V. Nahar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev J. Raikar i/by Shri N.C.Walimbe for respondent no.1. Smt.A.A.Mane  APP for State. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1 The petitioner has challenged the order of the J.M.F.C.Pune, dated 14th July 2008 rejecting his application for permission to recall and re-examine the complainant and the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 9th June 2009 confirming the said order in revision. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court ought to have seen that the refusal to allow the complainant to be recalled as a witness would result in injustice. 2 Since, according to the petitioner, there is change in the advocate and several important questions remained to be asked to the witness in the trial court. For instance, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has admitted that he was a Money Lender. Therefore, the advocate of the accused should have asked him a question whether he has maintained a register of record under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that this reason has not been given by the petitioner either in the trial or in the Sessions Court and is being stated for the first time before this Court. 3 Having considered the matter, I am of the view that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not liable to be interfered with, particularly when the only reason given before the Courts below, was that there is a change in advocate and failure of the earlier advocate to ask several important questions which the newly appointed advocate wishes to ask. The Courts below had rightly rejected this request. 3 This Court in the case of Popatlal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 794 has observed that, : It appears that the advocate appointed by the applicant, probably did not effectively bring out certain material on record, which is the opinion of the applicant was necessary, to weaken the prosecution case. The intention of the applicant was therefore, to appoint another advocate to effectively carry out this job and therefore, this application for recalling of all the prosecution witnesses was made. This certainly is not permissible. 4 There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. (S.A.BOBDE, J.)