- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.12.2010 passed in S. T. No. 279 of 2008 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F. T. C. - VIII, Ranchi, whereby the application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Court below. It appears from the impugned order that the case relates for the offence under Sections 376, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the witnesses were examined by the Court below including the informant, I.O. and the Doctor, who had supported the case. It also appears that after closing the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he entered into the defence, but no defence evidence was adduced and accordingly, the defence evidence was closed and the case was fixed for the arguments. At this stage the petitioner filed application for recalling the P.W.- 4, the prosecutrix for her further cross- examination stating that she had given her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. on which she could not be cross-examined, and the said application has been rejected by the Court below by order dated 03.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the prosecutrix had given different version of the case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but due to inadvertence, she could not be cross-examined on that point. Learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order dated 03.12.2010 be set aside and the petitioner be given opportunity to further cross-examination the prosecutrix. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and the petitioner had already cross-examined the witness, thereafter, she was discharged. Thereafter, after examining the other witnesses for the prosecution on the subsequent dates, the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner the defence evidence was closed, as no defence evidence was adduced by the petitioner. From the impugned order it also appears that the petitioner was seeking adjournments on one ground or the other in the arguments stage and ultimately he has filed the application for further cross-examination of the prosecutrix. The Court below has found that the said application has been filed to avoid the arguments in the case and to make unnecessary delay in disposal of the case, and has accordingly, rejected the application of the petitioner filed u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby, dismissed. (H. C. Mishra, J);