- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi, in S.T Case No. 188 of 2010, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the P.W.1 and 2 for their further cross-examination was rejected by the Court below.
(3.) The impugned order shows that this is a Sessions Trial of 2010, in which, the charge was framed on 5.5.2010. The prosecution witnesses were examined during the trial. Subsequently an application was filed for recalling the P.W1 for his further cross-examination, which was also allowed and P.W.1 was further cross-examined by the defence on 27.1.2011 and thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and the case was fixed for defence evidence which was also closed by the order dated 13.10.2011 after giving sufficient opportunity to the defence for adducing the evidence. There is an order of the High Court to conclude the trial within six months and when the case was fixed for arguments, again an application was filed by the petitioner for recalling the P.W.1 and 2 for their further cross examination which was neither signed by the accused, nor his counsel, but the same was pressed. The Court below taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, as also taking into consideration the Provision of Law that the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., is to be allowed when the Court feels necessary to re-examine or cross-examine the witness to arrive at the just conclusion of the case, as also finding that the present application has been filed only with a view to delay the trial, rejected the application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order.;