The court emphasized that there was no justification for permitting further cross-examination of a witness at the stage of final argument, especially after a significant period had passed since the recording of the witness's statement.

This revision is directed against the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the A.S.J/F.T.C. No. 5, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 108 of 1997, State v. Kripa Shankar, under sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC, P.S. Madanapur, District-Shahjahanpur whereby the application un­der section 311 Cr. P.C. moved by the revi­sionist was dismissed.

2. Learned Counsel for the revision­ist filed certified copy of statement of P.W.-2 Anoop Katiyar, which is taken on record. Statement of P.W.-2 Anoop Katiyar was recorded on 27.3.2003. Application under section 311 Cr. P.C. was moved by the revi­sionist before the Trial Court on 4.6.2010 for recalling P.W.-2 for further cross-examination. It was mentioned in the ap­plication that a suggestion could not be given to P.W.-2 in cross-examination. The proposed question was also mentioned, which is to the effect that the incident did not take place in the manner time and date as alleged by the prosecution.

3. The application was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that applica­tion under section 311 Cr. P.C. has been moved after seven years of the recording of the statement of P.W.-2, who was suffi­ciently cross-examined. The case was fixed for final argument and at that stage there was no ground to recall P.W.-2. Hence the application was dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that suggestion was to be put to P.W-2 that the incident did not take place on the date time and place alleged by the prosecution and this suggestion could not be put to the witness earlier.

Learned AGA supported the impugned order.

4. The Sessions Trial is pending since 1997. P.W.-2 was cross-examined in March, 2003. After seven years at the stage of final argument, there is no justification for permitting further cross-examination of P.W.-2. The revisionist wishes to recall P.W.-2 merely to put a suggestion to him. Putting or not putting suggestion to the witness is hardly material. The fate of the depends on hard facts and not on sugges­tion. There is no necessity for recalling P.W.-2 for merely putting a suggestion to him.

5. In this view of the matter, I have come to the conclusion, that the application under section 311 Cr. P.C. has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.

The revision lacks merit and is accord­ingly dismissed at this stage.