acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2010 OF 2009 Shri Govind Kisan Bagade ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra . ..Respondent. ­­­ Mr. Girish Agarwal, for the Petitioners. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. ­­­ CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner is original accused. He sought recalling PW Maroti Humbe who was cited as eyewitness in the sessions case. 2. That application for recalling the witness for further cross­ examination has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. Heard. 4. The impugned order reveals that discretion has been used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the application. On perusal of the application (Exh.`C’), it is explicit that only ground stated in the application is that certain questions regarding material omissions 1 had remained to be put to the witness during the course of the cross­ examination. There were some commissions in his police statement which were not put to him. 5. The learned counsel would submit that the material omission could not be spelt out because it would have given prior idea to the witness regarding the nature of omissions. The recalling of a witness comes within the powers available under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The eyewitness in the sessions case is always an important witness. The cross­examination cannot be regarded as insufficient only because few omissions were not put to the witness. The material omissions which amount to contradictions only are relevant one and not all kinds of omissions. The impugned order does not suffer from vice of perversity and as such the petition is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR, J ] 2