Crl. Misc. No. M-36612 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-36612 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.12.2010 Gurnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurmit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has challenged order dated 1st October, 2009 (Annexure P4), passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and order dated 1st October, 2010 (Annexures P-5), passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby application moved by the petitioner for recalling a witness for cross-examination, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the counsel who was earlier engaged by the petitioner did not cross-examine the complainant on certain important issues and thus, it was necessary to recall the said witness for cross-examination. According to him, his prayer has been wrongly rejected by the trial court and the revisional court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner before the Crl. Misc. No. M-36612 of 2010 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar was dismissed by observing that merely because the counsel, who was earlier engaged by the petitioner, was not able to put certain questions to said witness, was no ground for re-calling him. This apart, the case had reached its maturity and thus, no interference was called for. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity with the impugned order. A perusal of Annexure P-2 shows that the complainant Gurmit Singh was cross-examined at length by the counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the witness was confronted with the material questions. Learned counsel has not been able to show any prejudice, that is likely to be caused to the petitioner by refusal of the court below to recall the said witness. Admittedly, the case is now at a mature stage and the trial is likely to conclude soon. I am, thus, of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned orders in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 14.12.2010 'rajpal'