Khalil vs State of U.P.

N. B. Asthana, J.—This revision has been directed against the order dated 1121994 passed by the IXth Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in Session Trial No. 779 of 1990 (State v. Khalil and others) under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149 and 302/149, IPC, P.S. Kithor, Meerut recalling its order dated 2191V94. It appears from the record that PW2 Smt. Maqsoodan was examined on 2081993 by the trial Court. On that date Sri B.P.S. Tomar advocate, crossexamined PW2 Smt. Maqsoodan. He did not crossexamined PW3 Sri Mukhtar. On 581993 Sri Raj Kumar Goel moved an application for permission to crossexamine PW3 Mukhtar. This application was allowed. The crossexamination of PW3 Mukhtar was completed on 1881993. On 15101993 PW4 Jayveer Singh and PW5 Dr. S. K. Johari were examined. Sri Raj Kumar Goel then moved an application for recalling PW2 Smt. Maqsoodan for further crossexamination. This application was rejected and a date for further prosecution evidence was fixed. On 2191994 another application for recalling PW2 Smt. Maqsoodan was moved. This application was allowed. Thereafter an application was moved by the first informant for setting aside that order. The trial Court recalled its earlier order dated 2191994 and fixed a date for further evidence of the prosecution.

The main point urged in this revision is that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to recall its own order. This argument cuts both ways. The application moved on behalf of the prosecution for recalling PW2 Smt. Maqsoodan for crossexamination was rejected earlier. The trial Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to recall that order and permit the accused to further crossexamine her. The order of the trial Court passed subsequently for recalling PW2 Maqsoodan for crossexamination was not in accordance with law. If that wrong order was subsequently recalled, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed any mistake. From order itself it appears that the revisionist was given full opportunity to crossexamine PW2 Smt. Maqsoodan and in fact she was crossexamined to the satisfaction of the counsel for the revisionist in the trial Court.

No case for interference in the order passed by the trial Court has been made out. The revision is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.