Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the questions sought to be put before P.W. 10 Smt. Sarika Mohan are necessary to be asked with the witness for cross examination and the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted wrongly and illegally in rejecting the application of revisionist under section 311 Cr.P.C. for not giving reasons,due to which the proposed questions could not be put before P.W.10, when she was earlier cross examined at length by revisionist on 5.1.2012; that due to some inadvertent mistake, the questions could not be put to the witness and the P.W. 10 may be recalled for further cross examination in the interest of justice, for which the revisionist is ready to pay the cost or expenses, if any, imposed by the Court.

Per contra, learned AGA supporting the impugned order submitted that the impugned order is fully justified and there is no illegality or irregularity; that the impugned order itself shows that P.W. 10 was examined on 5.1.2012 and was cross examined by the revisionist at length, moreover, suggestion of having enmity with the revisionist was also