LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-44

MUKESH KUMAR RICHHARIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On March 22, 2016
Mukesh Kumar Richhariya Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner, this M.Cr.C. is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dt.05.08.2015 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (constituted under the P.C.Act) Vidisha, in Special Case No.5/2013 dismissing the application of the filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling and re -examination of the Defence Witness No.1 Ms.Vimla Shukla, the clerk of the Department.

(3.) In the course of the argument, after taking us through the papers placed on the record alongwith the impugned order, the petitioner's counsel argued that soon after examining the Defence Witness No.1 Ms. Vimla Shukla, he has filed the application (Annexure P/2) under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court to recall her to ask the questions stated in the application and before considering such application, another Defence Witness Ravi Shankar Rai, the then Tahsildar was examined, in which he has stated some other facts and in the light of said facts, the re -examination of the Defence Witness No.1 Ms.Vimla Shukla was necessary, so in any case the trial court was bound to allow the aforesaid application (Annexure P/2) and extend the opportunity to re -examine the Defence Witness No.1 Ms. Vimla Shukla but contrary to the record and settled position, such application has been dismissed and in such premises, the impugned order is not sustainable and prayed to set aside the same by allowing this petition with a direction to the trial court to permit the petitioner herein to recall Ms.Vimla Shukla (D.W.1) and re -examine her from the subject stated in the application or in alternate he said that in any case if the court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order could not be interfered at this stage by allowing the application (Annexure P/2), then in that circumstance, the petitioner be extended an opportunity to file the fresh application by mentioning some additional facts to recall the aforesaid Defence Witness No.1 Ms. Vimla Shukla and till this extent, this petition be allowed.