H.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. - VII, Hazaribagh, in S.T. No. 339 of 2005 whereby, the Court below, in exercise of the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. recalled the witness P.W. - 2 Taleshwar Mahto in the ends of justice.
(2.) IT appears from the impugned order that the case relates to offence under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W. - 2 Taleshwar Mahto, who was the informant in the case was examined by the prosecution on 15.12.2006 and he was discharged after his cross -examination. On the same day the petition was filed by the prosecution to recall him for asking some material facts left to be asked from him, but the application was kept pending in the Court below. Thereafter, successive applications were filed in the Court below for recalling the said witness. In view of the petition filed by the prosecution that the material question on the point of demand of dowry was left to be asked from the said informant, and in view of the fact that the case was instituted for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court below in the ends of justice recalled P.W. - 2 Taleshwar Mahto (informant) for re -examination, giving liberty to the defense to cross -examine the said witness.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and amounts to fill up the lacuna and, accordingly, the same cannot be allowed in the eyes of law.;