The expeditious handling of vulnerable witnesses and the special procedure for recording evidence of child witnesses under the POCSO Act are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present criminal revision petition has been filed under section 397 & 401 r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 29.09.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-01, (POCSO), Distt. North, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

2. By the impugned order, the trial court dismissed the petitioner''s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW-1 (victim) and PW-4 (father of victim) in FIR No.404/2017, under Section 354 IPC & Section 8 POCSO Act, P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, New Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion, cross-examination could not be conducted due to the non-availability of the main counsel and subsequently when the opportunity was granted the petitioner could not brief his new counsel properly and as such certain essential and material questions regarding the presence of other persons at the spot could not be put in the cross-examination of PW-1. He further submits that PW-1 and PW-4 are material witnesses and their proper crossexamination is essential for just decision of the case.

4. Lastly, it was contended that the denial for recall of the aforesaid witnesses is an irreparable injury to the defence of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that the present application is a second application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking recall of the very same witnesses. It was also submitted that the present application has been filed only with a view to delay the trial.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. Briefly, the FIR came to be registered on 04.09.2017 under Section 354 IPC read Section 8 POCSO Act on the complaint of the victim child where it was stated that she was taking the tuition from the present petitioner. On some occasion, she took tuition at the house of the petitioner. On 04.09.2017 at about 2:00 P.M. when she went for the tuition to the house of the petitioner, her inserted his hand under cloth of the victim and touched her private parts.

7. The victim as well as her father were first examined on 31.08.2018 when the examination-in-chief was recorded. The opportunity to crossexamine could not be availed as the counsel was not present. Subsequently, the petitioner engaged new counsel Mr. Mukul Sharma and an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking recall of PW-1. The said application was allowed and the child victim was recalled and permitted to be cross-examined. The cross-examination was partly conducted on 04.09.2019 and remaining cross-examination was conducted on 30.10.2019. PW-4 was cross-examined on 05.02.2020.

8. On 19.09.2020, another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-4 on the ground that the petitioner has again engaged a new counsel and that only previous occasion he could not himself present on the date of the crossexamination and thus could not brief his previous counsel properly.

9. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the child victim has already appeared thrice for cross-examination before the trial court. The petitioner''s first counsel did not appear and avail the opportunity of crossexamining the child victim. The petitioner''s second counsel moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed and the child victim was cross-examined on 04.09.2019 and 31.10.2019 when the child victim''s cross-examination was completed and she was discharged. The petitioner again changed his counsel and his third counsel conducted the cross-examination of child victim''s father on 05.02.2020.

10. The present application has been filed by the petitioner''s third counsel seeking recall of the very same witnesses. The issue regarding recall of child witness came before this court on earlier occasion in the case of Jaidev v. State in CRL.M.C. 4412/2019 wherein it was held as under:-

"9. The Trial Court while passing thei