1. - This criminal misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 13.01.2006 passed by the learned A.D.J. (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur, Camp-Kaman in Sessions Case No. 25/2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 criminal procedure code. has been dismissed.

2. In the instant case, the statement of the prosecutrix petitioner was recorded on 25.10.2005 during the trial, before the learned court below. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 criminal procedure code. for re-examining herself before the trial court. At that time, two more prosecution witnesses had been examined, subsequent to the examination of the prosecutrix. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and having held that there is no basis for allowing the prayer of the prosecutrix for re2 examination, dismissed the application by the order impugned.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present misc. petition before this Court and the same was considered and decided on 20.02.2006. By the said order, the High Court had allowed the application under Section 311 criminal procedure code. and directed the trial court to record the statement of the petitioner afresh. Later on, non-petitioner No. 2 had filed an application for recalling of the order dated 20.02.2006 but the same was dismissed on 02.03.2006. Subsequently, non-petitioner No. 2 filed a Special Leave Petition No. (1805/2006), before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was registered as Criminal Case No. (934/2007). In the special appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 25.07.2007, set aside the order passed by the High Court on 20.02.2006 and directed that the petition filed before the High Court be heard on merits.

4. Hence, this criminal misc. petition has come up again before this Court for being considered on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition and stated that the learned trial court has erred in dismissing the application under Section 311 criminal procedure code. He has further submitted that the learned trial court was very much competent to consider and allow the application under Section 311 criminal procedure code. and to summon the witness.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to 4 has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order of 13.01.2006 after exercising the power vested in it. He has also submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner-prosecutrix had already been examined on 25.10.2005 and thereafter, two more prosecution witnesses were examined by the trial court. Subsequently, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the filing of the application under Section 311 criminal procedure code. was not tenable and there was no just reason for the same. Therefore, he has submitted that the learned trial court has properly exercised its powers and passed the orders under challenge because there was no legal basis for exercising the powers under Section 311 criminal procedure code. so as to recall the prosecutrix-petitioner in the witness box. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for non-petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (1989) 4 SCC 436 , wherein it has been held thus:-

15. The object of Section 278 is twofold: firstly to ensure that the evidence of the witness as recorded is accurate and secondly to give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes, if any. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the Judge considers necessary he will make it at once as required by subsection (1) but if the correction is such that the judge does not consider necessary, subsection (2) requires that a memorandum of the objection be made and the judge add his remarks, if any, thereto. In the present case, the learned trial Judge