SANJAY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Mishra holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri J.K. Chaturvedi holding brief of Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the complainant.

(2.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 6 -1 -2004 passed by Sri Gulab Singh Rathor, Special Judge (E.G. Act)/Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in ST. 788 of 2002 State v. San/a/.

(3.) IT is to be seen that P.W. 1 Mohan LalGupta has been sufficiently cross -examined by the then learned Counsel for the revisionist and in this view of the mater there was no justification for permitting further cross -examination of the witness on the engagement of a new Counsel by the accused revisionist. In case the new Counsel of the accused revisionist was of the view that some important questions, which were relevant and essential for just decision of the case, could not be asked from the P.W. 1 in his cross -examination, the proper procedure was to specify those questions and seek permission from the Court to put those specified questions with a prayer to recall the witness for putting those ques ­tions, and if any such application had been moved by the accused revisionist, the Court could pass suitable orders on that application considering the aspect whether those questions had been put to that witness or not and whether re -examination of the witness is essential for putting those questions to him in the interest of fair trial of the case, and if the Court reached the conclusion that those questions were essential for that purpose, it could permit re -examination of the witness on those questions only. But the learned Counsel for the revisionist did not move any such application. He moved an application for further cross -examination of the witness which was not permissible when the opportunity of cross -examination of the witness had been availed and the witness had been cross -examined by the previous Counsel of the revisionist. Learned trial Court did not commit any illegal ­ity by rejecting that application. The order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality. The revision has thus got no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay order stands va ­cated.