- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. Sri Sunil Vashisth, Advocate holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. for the op posite party are present.
(2.) THROUGH this revision, the revisionist who is facing trial in S. T No. 982 of 1994 State v. Sheela and others before the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut has assailed the order dated 4-10-1997 passed by the Court below rejecting his application under Section 311, Cr. P. C. to recall P. W. 1 Km. Mukesh for further cross-examination. The application was made by him before the Court below on the ground that the counsel who cross-ex amined the said witness had not been engaged by him, that he did not put proper question to the witness and that he was in collusion with the complainant. Learned A. G. A. opposes the revision on the ground that sufficient reasons have been given by the Court below to reject the application of revisionist to recall P. W. 1 Km. Mukesh. On hearing learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. and on going through the order of the Lower Court, I am of the opinion that the im pugned order does not suffer from any flaw. The application of the revisionist/ac cused to recall P. W. 1 has been rejected for justifiable reasons. The memorandum of engagement of Sri Balraj Oberai, Advo cate was there on the record from the side of accused/revisionist. P. W. 1 had been cross-examined by him at length. The ac cused/revisionist could also not point out the facts which had been omitted by his counsel in cross-examination of P. W. 1. The revision has no merit and it is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;