MUKESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Shiva Nand, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. Raman K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General, present for the State/respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 21.04.2014, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 142 of 2013 (State v. Mukesh Yadav), whereby the opportunity of applicant/accused for cross examination of PW1, PW2 and PW3 was closed, order dated 09.01.2015, by which the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant was rejected and order dated 09.03.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2015 by which the revision of the applicant against the order dated 09.03.2015 has been rejected on the ground of non maintainable.

(3.) ON 21st April, 2014, the prosecution examined its witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3, some of them have come all along from Calcutta. Their examination -in -chief was conducted on the said date in the pre lunch session. The matter was later adjourned for post lunch session, for cross examination. In the post lunch session, an application for adjournment was filed by the defence stating that they are not prepared for the cross -examination and they would like to cross examine the witnesses on some other date. Their application in this regard was rejected by the trial court on 21.04.2014 and opportunity of cross examination was closed. Thereafter, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the defence for recall of PW1, PW2 and PW3, which was rejected on 9th January, 2015, as the court did not find any occasion to recall the witnesses. Moreover, the defence was given full opportunity of cross examination way back on 21st April, 2014, but they did not cross examine the witnesses without enough cause, particularly when the witnesses had come all the way from Calcutta. The defence had moved a belated application on 9th January, 2015, which has rightly been rejected. Though the trial court has power to examine the witnesses at any stage but this powers should be exercised rarely and judiciously. There was no occasion to exercise these powers in the present case. Both the orders passed by the trial court as well as revisional court are totally justified. There is no occasion for any interference in the matter. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.