- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the questions sought to be put before P.W. 10 Smt. Sarika Mohan are necessary to be asked with the witness for cross examination and the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted wrongly and illegally in rejecting the application of revisionist under section 311 Cr.P.C. for not giving reasons,due to which the proposed questions could not be put before P.W.10, when she was earlier cross examined at length by revisionist on 5.1.2012; that due to some inadvertent mistake, the questions could not be put to the witness and the P.W. 10 may be recalled for further cross examination in the interest of justice, for which the revisionist is ready to pay the cost or expenses, if any, imposed by the Court.
(3.) Per contra, learned AGA supporting the impugned order submitted that the impugned order is fully justified and there is no illegality or irregularity; that the impugned order itself shows that P.W. 10 was examined on 5.1.2012 and was cross examined by the revisionist at length, moreover, suggestion of having enmity with the revisionist was also put to the then Chief Development Officer, an I.A.S.; that the revisionist is accused in a trap case and has been caught red handed at the time of receiving illegal gratifications; that revisionist is delaying the disposal of trial on one lame excuse or the other, by moving one frivolous application or the other just to avoid his conviction; that earlier after long time, application for recall of P.W. 1 under section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved, which was rejected by trial court and the order was challenged before this Court by revisionist; that vide order dated 26.2.2013, the order of trial court was upheld by this Court with a direction to decide the sessions trial expeditiously within three months; that surprisingly enough the revisionist continued to linger on the disposal of sessions trial and after a period of more than one and half years from the date of order passed by this Court directing expeditious disposal, he moved another application with mala fide intentions, for recall of P.W. 10 for further cross examination; that in any case if the prosecution has failed to prove any fact, the accused is not required to fill up the lacuna; that the revisionist is avoiding final disposal of sessions trial and making abuse of process of court by his misconduct.;