- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to set aside the order dated 15-5-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, District Bhadohi/gyanpur, (now Sant Ravi Das Nagar in Session Trial No. 76 of 2006 (State v. Pankaj Singh and Ors. ).
(2.) HEARD Learned learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State. The facts relevant for the disposal of the application are that the aforesaid S. T. No. 76 of 2006 under Section 394 I. P. C. is pending against the accused persons for trial in the above Court. On 14-5-2007 the statements of S. D. Hawaldar Singh, who had partly investigated the case, was recorded as PW9. He was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the other co-accused, but he could not be cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the applicants on that date, and as no adjournment was sought on their behalf, the witness was discharged. Thereafter, the present applicants moved an application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for recall of that witness to cross-examine him. It was alleged in the application that Shri Vijay Nath Pandey learned Counsel for the applicant No. 1 was busy in another Court and Shri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the other accused applicant was also busy in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate they could not appear to cross-examine the witness. The application was however rejected by the learned Additional Session Judge of the Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhadohi,vide order dated 15-5- 2007. Aggrieved, with that order the present applicants have filed this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. I have heard learned learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State at the admission stage and I am deciding it on merits at the stage of admission.
(3.) NO copy of the recall application has been filed but it appears from perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge of the Fast Track Court that this recall application was moved under Section 311 Cr. P. C. I am of the view that the proper remedy for the applicant was to move an application for cross- examination of the witness and not one under Section 311 Cr. P. C. which confers power upon the Court to call any witness in the interest of justice if Court is of the view that his statement is essential for just decision of the case. It is the discretion of the Court, and no party can seek examination of any witness under this Section as a matter of right. So the prayer for recalling the witness has been rightly rejected under Section 311 Cr. P. C.;