- (1.) Instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 26-3-2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 1984 of 1999, State v. Jawahar Singh, under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. police station Jewar, district Gautam Budh Nagar, by which application moved by accused for cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 was rejected on 24-1 -2001 and subsequently when application was moved for recall of the witnesses, it was rejected by the impugned order.
(2.) Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA and have gone through the record.
(3.) The prosecution case is that one Nanak Chand lodged FIR against the revisionist Jawahar and others on 17-11-1995 at 4.00 a.m. containing the fact that his daughter Kumari Durga alias Kumari Anju, aged about 15 years had gone to respond natural call in the morning of 14-11-1995 at 5 a.m. When delay took place and she did not return, he and his family members started to make search for her. It was told by one Padam Singh that Jawahar Singh and Smt. Anokhi, residents of village Bebar were seen going with Kumari Anju in the bus towards Sikandrapur. After the FIR was lodged investigation started. The girl was recovered. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Sessions trial proceeded under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. Charges were framed against the revisionist. Exami- nation-in-chief of PW-1 Smt. Anju (now married) and PW-2 Nank Chand, her father was recorded on 24-1-2001. The learned counsel for the accused moved adjournment application. When he was asked to cross- examine the witness, it was rejected on 24-1-2001. Later on application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. was moved for recall of these witnesses for cross-examination, but it was rejected on 26-3-2001, hence this revision has been preferred.;