MANGE KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the applicant Mange Khan under Section 391 read with Section 311 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ,,Code) for recalling PW-6, PW-8 & PW-9 for their further cross-examination.

(2.) THE averments made in the application are to the effect that although admittedly all the aforenoted witnesses i.e. PW-6, PW-8 & PW-9 had been examined and cross-examined but because of the fault of the counsel, no effective cross-examination could be conducted; the said witnesses being material witnesses, permission should be accorded to recall them.

(3.) RECORD shows that PW-6 was the landlord where the deceased was living; PW-8 was a co-tenant and so also was PW-9. All the aforenoted witnesses were examined-in-chief and cross-examined at length by the counsel for the accused Ms. Vandana Ruhela on 20.03.2007. The said witnesses were discharged on the same day. Relevant would it be to state that Ms. Vandana Ruhela was a private counsel; she had been engaged privately by the accused and was not a legal aid counsel; the legal aid counsel representing the accused was in fact discharged as a private advocate had been engaged. This has been noted by the court in its order dated 20.3.2007. Thereafter an application seeking recall of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8 was filed before the trial Court. This application was dismissed on 18.02.2009 by a speaking order. It was noted that effective cross-examination of all the aforenoted witnesses has been carried out by the counsel for the accused; no case having been made out to recall the aforenoted witnesses, the said application was dismissed.