IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21495 of 2007 1. Hriday Sharma son of Krishna Mistri 2. Krishna Mistry son of Late Ramjee Mistri Both residents of Village-Uchauli, Police Station- Khizarsarai, District-Gaya. --------------- Petitioners -V e r s u s – 1. The State of Bihar 2. Nageshwari Devi wife of Late Bhuneshwar Sharma, resident Mohalla- Chandauti More, Police Station-Rampur, District- Gaya. -------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- 4 30-09-2008 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Mayanand Jha, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioners is against the rejection of their petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning four witnesses for their re-examination in connection with Sessions Trial no.33 of 2003 by order dated 31.3.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court no.III, Gaya. It has been submitted that by inadvertence certain crucial questions could not be put to the witnesses (i.e. P.Ws 1 to 4) in course of cross-examination and answers to such questions was vitally important for the ends of justice. It appears that earlier the petitioners had moved this Court in Cr.Misc.No.44001 of 2005 which was permitted to be withdrawn with an observation that in case any further petition is filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners then the same shall be - 2 - considered on its own merit. It appears that subsequent petition was filed on 12.2.2007 and the learned court below for cogent reasons recorded in the impugned order has rejected the prayer for summoning those witnesses for their re-examination. From Annexure-4, it appears that as many as thirteen questions were sought to be put to the witnesses which gives an impression that the defence counsel in course of cross-examination of the witnesses had, in fact, been remiss or was forgetful in putting vital questions to the witnesses. The fault of the counsel for the defence cannot now be permitted to be rectified by taking recourse to Section 311 Cr.P.C. Apparently what the petitioners now want is to fill up loopholes and lacuna in the defence case which is neither warranted nor permissible. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-