IMPORTANT POINT
A Court as a matter of fact should not recall a witness after the evidence is closed.

ORDER

A,S. Naidu, J. - This matter was listed for admission today, but with consent of learned counsel for both sides it was finally heard and Is disposed of by this Judgment.

2. The petitioners who are accused in S.T. Nos. 161 of 1999 and 53 of 2000 pending. in the court of the learned Sessions Judge. Khurda, Bhubaneswar have filed this Criminal Misc. Case invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC'). The sole grievance of the petitioners is that their application filed under Section 311 CrPC has been illegally rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. Admittedly. on 14-2-2003 a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners under. Section 311 CrPC to recall P.Ws. 2. 3. 5. 6. 10. 13. 14.and 15. Another petition was also filed to recall P.Ws, 16. 19. 23. 26. 33. 39. 40 and 43 for further cross-examination. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said petitions on 15-3-2003. The said order of the Sessions Judge dated 15-3-2003 was impugned before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 391 of 2003 which has disposed of by this Court on 27-2-2003 with the following direction :

"1. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application under Section 311 of CrPC to recall those witnesses, who are required to be further cross-examined.

2. The petitioners shall also 'indicate the questions that may be to put to a particular witness.

3. The, learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the petition shall find out whether such a question has been put and answered or not. He shall also find out whether the question has any relevance for the purpose of the case and shall also consider whether such a question is permissible and recall of witness on that basis provided the prayer comes within the ambit of Sec. 311 CrPC. Those witnesses who have not supported the prosecution case shall not be recalled for the purpose of further cross-examination. If such petitions are filed before the learned Sessions Judge. the same shall be disposed of within 15 days from the date of filing."

4. ' It appears that on 20-3-2003 a fresh petition was flied under Section 311 CrPC before the Sessions Judge to recall seventeen prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. Along with the said petition. learned counsel for defence also furnished a questionnaire to be put to particular witnesses. Prosecution filed objection repudiating the averments made in the petition and specifically stated that the questionnaire did not fall within the ambit of Section 311 CrPC and that the same were not relevant. It was also submitted that the evidence on both sides in the two Sessions Trials had been concluded.

5. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 25-3-2003 rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 311 CrPC. The said order is impugned in the present Criminal Misc. Case

6. Mr. B.R. Mohanty. learned counsel for the petitioners forcefully submitted that the trial court has the power and authority to recall a witness at any stage of the trial and in view of the fact that the judgment has not been pronounced there was no embargo for the trial court to recall the witnesses sought to be cross-examined further. It was also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the facts and has disposed of the petitioner on a stereo-type manner without due application of mind and it is a the case where opportunity should be given to the petitioners to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that the Sessions Judge did not permit the defence to confront the witnesses sought to be recalled with their statements made before the Wadhwa Commission and such action was illegal.

7. Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned counsel for the Republic of India. at the other hand vehemently countenanced the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. According to Mr. Padhi. the evidence of both the prosecution and the defence has co