JUDGMENT :

A.M. Badar, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. By this application, the applicant/accused is challenging the order dated 12th April 2017 thereby rejecting application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity) whereby he had requested for recalling PW 2 Devendra Astekar, Deputy Executive Engineer, for further cross-examination.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. He argued that in a prosecution under Section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused had not properly cross-examined PW 2 Devendra Astekar, and therefore, for effective cross-examination of PW 2 Devendra Astekar, the application came to be filed for recalling him. However, the learned trial court, without considering the scope of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. had rejected the said application.

4. The learned APP opposed the application by contending that the application is filed for filling up the lacuna.

5. I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the impugned order. The application for recalling PW 2 Devendra