The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses and participate in the proceedings, emphasizing the discretion of the judge to permit cross-examination and the necessity for a just decision.

( 1 ) INSTANT revision has been preferred against the order dated 26-3-2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gautam buddh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 1984 of 1999, State v. Jawahar Singh, under sections 363, 366, 376, I. P. C. police station jewar, district Gautam Budh Nagar, by which application moved by accused for cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 was rejected on 24-1 -2001 and subsequently when application was moved for recall of the witnesses, it was rejected by the impugned order.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA and have gone through the record.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that one nanak Chand lodged FIR against the revisionist jawahar and others on 17-11-1995 at 4. 00 a. m. containing the fact that his daughter Kumari Durga alias Kumari Anju, aged about 15 years had gone to respond natural call in the morning of 14-11-1995 at 5 a. m. When delay took place and she did not return, he and his family members started to make search for her. It was told by one Padam Singh that Jawahar Singh and smt. Anokhi, residents of village Bebar were seen going with Kumari Anju in the bus towards sikandrapur. After the FIR was lodged investigation started. The girl was recovered. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Sessions trial proceeded under Sections 363, 366, 376, I. P. C. Charges were framed against the revisionist. Exami- nation-in-chief of PW-1 Smt. Anju (now married) and PW-2 Nank Chand, her father was recorded on 24-1-2001. The learned counsel for the accused moved adjournment application. When he was asked to cross- examine the witness, it was rejected on 24-1-2001. Later on application under Section 311, Cr. P. C. was moved for recall of these witnesses for cross-examination, but it was rejected on 26-3-2001, hence this revision has been preferred.

( 4 ) SECTION 311, Cr. P. C. contemplates that

( 5 ) A perusal of this section shows that it is the power or discretion, which is conferred by the statute on a Court to summon a witness if it appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. It means the Court is not prohibited from summoning any material witness at any stage of the case, but it should be satisfaction of the court itself that the evidence of such witness is necessary for just decision of the case. In instant case the learned Sessions judge was of the view that cross-examination was made by the accused himself and it was exhausting, therefore, the discretion was not exercised under Section 311 of Cr. P. C. and the prayer was rejected. If prosecution would have closed its evidence and the Court would have arrived at the conclusion that examination of some witnesses was necessary, it was open to the Court to summon these witnesses. But when examinatlon-in-chlef of this witness was recorded under Section 231 (1) of Cr. P. C. the power was not required to be exercised by the Court under Section 311 of Cr. P. C. Thus the application under Section 311, Cr. P. C. was not maintainable but the prayer of the revisionist could be considered under Section 231 (2) of Cr. P. C.

( 6 ) SECTION 231 (2) of Cr. P. C. contemplates that"231. Evidence for prosecution. (2) The judge, may in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination. "

( 7 ) THUS Section 231 (2) of Cr. P. C. confers power on the Sessions Judge to differ cross-examination or if cross-examination of any witness has been done and it is found necessary that such witness should be recalled for further cross-examination, the witness may be summoned.

( 8 ) IN instant case the contention of the revisionist is that cross-examination of the prosecution witness of fact was made by the accused himself and therefore question relating to contradiction under Section 161, cr. P. C. in the statement of witnesses made before the Investigating