- (1.) A. S. Tripathi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) THE revisionist was an accused in a criminal case facing trial under Section 20 of N. D. P. S. Act before Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat. The witnesses were examined and cross-examined. The revisionist alleges that on account of his poverty he could not engage any counsel and the learned counsel as engaged did not cross-examine the witnesses properly. An application was moved for recalling the witness for cross-examination but the said application was rejected by the trial Judge on the ground that witnesses have been cross-examined by the lawyer. After perusing the affidavit and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the revisionist was not satisfied by the cross-examina tion done by the trial Judge in the trial court.
(3.) WITHOUT expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it appears necessary_ for the ends of justice that the revisionist accused be allorded an opportunity for further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the revisionist at this stage prays only for re calling witnesses, PW 3-S. I. Ram Dularey Singh, PW 4-S. I. Brijraj Dubey and PW 5-Mohd. Yasin for further cross-examination.;