In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1375 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2010 Mustkeem ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Parshant Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed challenging order dated 1.5.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nuh, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-calling PW-1 was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that certain relevant questions were inadvertently not put to PW-1 Iqlash during his cross-examination. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, Crl.Rev.No. 1375 of 2010 (O&M) -2- summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” As per the above provision, the Court at any stage of trial may summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. In the present case, the statement of PW-1 Iqlash was recorded on 14.12.2009. The said witness had been duly cross- examined by the learned defence counsel. The said fact is evident from statement of PW-1 (Annexure P-1). It appears that the application has been moved for recalling of PW-1 Iqlash after the change of the defence counsel. Since, PW-1 Iqlash had been duly cross-examined by the defence counsel, learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for recalling PW-1 for his further cross-examination. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE May 18, 2010 anita