SURAJ PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T. P. Garg, J. The revisionist/ petitioner has filed an affidavit along with which the application (Annexure "2") to recall Satyadeo and Satish. P. Ws. , for cross-examination has been filed. In para 5 of the affidavit it has been stated that at the time of recording the statements of the aforesaid P. Ws. the revisionist's counsel was not given opportunity to cross-examine these two wit nesses. It is further stated in para 6 that an application (Annexure "2") dated 17-3-1997 was filed requesting the court to allow cross-examination of these two witnesses, but the same was rejected vide the impugned order.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A for the State. Both agreed that this petition/ revision be disposed of finally at this stage.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid observations this revision/petition is disposed of finally. Petition disposed of. .