- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is a revision against the order dated 3. 3. 2004 passed by Sri V. V. Singh, then learned Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 18, Agra in S. T. No. 301/94, State v. Bundu and others.
(2.) LIST has been revised. None is present for the revisionist. Learned A. G. A. is present for the State. Perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court on the application for recall of Khursheed P. W. 2 for further cross examination. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed in his order that sufficient opportunity for cross examination of P. W. 2, Khursheed had been given to the accused and recording of the statement of Khursheed started on 25. 5. 1999 and it was completed on 6. 8. 1999 after long cross examination. Learned Counsel for the accused moved an application that the statement of the above witness, which had been recorded by the C. B. C. I. D. during investigation, was not before him at the time when the statement of Khursheed was recorded and so he should be called for further cross examination. Learned Presiding Officer of the Court pointed out that the case of the accused was committed to the Court of Sessions in 1994 but at that time no plea was taken that the statement recorded by the C. B. C. I. D. was not made available to him and the application for recalling the witness had been moved after the lapse of five years from the date on which his statement was concluded. A typed copy of the statement of Khursheed has been filed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit in support of the stay application. Its perusal reveals that the statement in chief of Khursheed was recorded in two pages and thereafter his cross examination was recorded in 13 pages running from page 22 to page 34 of the file. Thus when the witness had been sufficiently cross examined at length, there was no justification for recalling the witness and the recall application was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. There is no force in the revision and it is hereby dismissed. Revision Dismissed. .;