S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The applicant State of Gujarat has preferred this Revision Application under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 20/8/2008 passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Dahod, below application exhibit-39 in Sessions Case No. 205 of 2007; rejecting the application made by the prosecution for calling one person namely Manoj Ashvin Ninama, son of the victim. Said application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Said application was resisted by oral submissions on behalf of the defence that the witness Sanjay who also happened to be elder son of deceased had been examined, and as it emerged from his testimony that he was not residing with the deceased when the incident occurred, to fill-in lacuna in the prosecution case, now an attempt is made to procure Manoj as witness and therefore, this attempt cannot be permitted and hence application for calling Manoj as witness be rejected.

2. The Court vide order dated 20/8/2008 accepted this submission but rejected the same on the sole ground that when Sanjay was required to be called, this witness i.e. Manoj was not requested to be called. Provision