- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro, in S.C. / S.T. Case No. 13 of 2009 arising out of G. R. No. 314 of 2008 whereby, the application filed by the defence for recalling the prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination again at the stage of arguments, was rejected by the Court below. From the impugned order it appears that the accused-petitioner is facing the trial for the offence under Sections 420, 423, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i)(x) of the S.C. S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In course of trial, eleven prosecution witnesses, including the informant and the Investigation Officer of the case, were examined. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, even the defence witness has been examined and the case is at the stage of the arguments. It further transpires from the impugned order that at this stage, the application was filed by the defence to recall the prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination stating that both the parties have settled their dispute, and the P.Ws. could not be cross-examined with respect to the place of occurrence. The Court below by the impugned order has rejected the application field by the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below was highly prejudiced the defence in as much as, inadvertently the witnesses could not be cross-examined on the point of place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case, in which, the defence be given an opportunity to recall the P.Ws. for their cross-examination on this point.;