Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - (1.) The impugned Order No. 24 dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Sealdah in connection with ST No. 4(3)16/(CIS-74/15) rejecting the application of the revisionist petitioner dated 25.07.2018 praying for further cross-examination of PW1 after recalling her on the grounds as set forth therein, is the subject of challenge in this revisional application.
(2.) Learned advocate for the revisionist submitted that for just decision of this case, further cross-examination of PW 1 was felt necessary by allowing recalling/re-examination. It was thus according to revisionist, that several material questions revealing animosity between the parties, because of pendency of several criminal cases against the revisionist/accused, including omissions and contradictions, recorded in the statement of witnesses, could not be put to PW 1 during cross-examination, as a result of which the defence was made to suffer serious prejudice. Further cross-examination under the behest of the order under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was alleged to be obligatory for the just decision of this case.
(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Panda representing the State controverting the submission raised by the revisionist, submitted that thrice PW1 was subjected to cross-examination i.e. on 19.04.17, 16.05.17 and 03.05.18 covering all necessary points in order to establish and/or put up an effective defence in the instant trial of this case. The power of the Court, under Section 311 Cr. P.C, according to State, should not be allowed to be sparingly utilised, because the extent of cross-examination of PW.1 together with the evidence witnesses, still left to be recorded, would be sufficient enough to unfold the version of the prosecution case.;