Akhilish @ Sonu vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2044 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 160 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Akhilish @ Sonu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Avnish Kumar "Bhatt",Ashish Chandra Asthana
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.

By way of this petition, order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Unnao, dated 4 May, 2012, has been challenged vide which the application of accused for recalling P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.3 and P.W.6 for cross-examination/further examination has been partly allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that the petitioner is ready to pay cost and on payment of cost, even P.W.1 and P.W.2 be allowed to be recalled for further cross-examination.

I have considered contention of the learned counsel.

On going through the impugned order, I find that the court has recorded that P.W.3 and P.W.6 were not cross-examined by the accused.  In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, application has been allowed for recalling the said two witnesses for cross-examination. 

So far as the case of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is concerned, the said witnesses have been duly cross-examined.  Merely because the accused at this juncture chooses to cross-examine the said witnesses further, cannot be a good ground.  It is not in dispute that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner-accused to cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the said witnesses were in fact cross-examined.  If such a prayer, as made by the accused in this case, is allowed, the trial would be unending.  There has to be a terminus to every lis.

I find that the relevant reasons have been assigned by the lower court for deciding the application, as noted above.  There is no merit in this petition.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.5.2012

A.Nigam