IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2870 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 21, 2011 Nanki ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The application for recall of two witnesses was allowed by the Court on the ground that these witnesses, though were examined earlier and cross-examined as well, but copies of their previous statements which led to their exoneration were not supplied to the defence. These statements were not available to the defence and accordingly an application was moved for recall of these witnesses to contradict them with their previous statements, which led to the exoneration of the newly added accused, who was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. This is a fair approach adopted by the trial court. Once the witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, but some material has subsequently made available to the accused persons, they would have a right to contradict the witnesses with their previous statements under the provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. I do not see any justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Dismissed. November 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE