KHAILD AHMAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 21. 2. 2007 passed by Fast Track Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 2007, State v. Aftab and others (case crime No. 182/05 of P. S. Bekan Ganj District Kanpur Nagar under Section 302,1. PC.)

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the aforesaid case is pending in Fast Track Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar for trial. Statement of P. W. 1 Khalid Ahmad Khan was recorded in the Court on 5. 9. 2006 and he was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the accused and then he was discharged. THEreafter statements of certain other prosecution witnesses were also recorded. On 21. 2. 2007 O. P. No. 2 Naushad moved an application for recalling P. W. 1 Khalid Ahmad Khan for further cross-examination in which he stated that on the date when the statement of Khalid Ahmad Khan was recorded, he was not the Counsel for the accused Naushad and some other Counsel had cross- exam ined Khalid Ahmad and he has now been engaged by Naushad as his Counsel, and after perusal of the statement of Khalid Ahmad Khan he was of the view that it was necessary to put some questions to Khalid Ahmad Khan and so Khalid Ahmad Khan should be recalled for cross-examination. It was, therefore, prayed that P. W. 1 Khalid Ahmad Khan should be recalled for further cross-examination and a date should be fixed for this purpose. This application was allowed by the learned Judge vide his order of the same date, i. e. 21. 2. 2007. Aggrieved with that order RW. 1 Khalid Ahmad Khan has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE application for further cross examination of the applicant was moved by his new Counsel on 21. 2. 2007 in which he stated that some important ques tions could not be asked from P. W. 1 and so he ( P. W. 1) should be recalled for further cross-examination. I am of the view that when the accused had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness and they had availed that opportunity the witness could not be recalled for further cross-examination. At the most the teamed Counsel for the accused, if he was of the view that certain important ques tions had not been put to P. W. 1 during the course of cross-examination, could have sought permission from the Court to put those questions to the witness after speci fying those questions in his application, but he did not do so. Under these circum stances, the prayer made by him for further cross examination of the witness who had already been sufficiently cross-examined was not maintainable and the learned trial Court has legally erred by allowing that application.