HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6138 of 2025 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Abu Shad holding brief of Sri Jai Kishan, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 3.9.2025, passed by the Special Judge (Rape and POCSO Act)-Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Session Trial No. 582 of 2022 (State Vs. Kuldeep ), arising out of case crime No. 72 of 2022, under Section 354, 342, 504, 506 IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Naya Gaon, District Etah, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that revisionist has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C before the trial court, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 3.9.2025. He has also submitted that the revisionist wants to further cross-examine PW-1/victim and PW-2 Phulan Devi. He, however, fairly admitted that the statement of PW-1 was recorded on 7.11.2023 and PW-2 on 6.1.2024. The cross examination of both the witnesses are already completed. 4. Learned AGA submitted that the impugned order is purely legal and there is neither any illegality nor irregularity or jurisdictional error. 5. I have perused the impugned order dated 3.9.2025. The session trial is of the year 2022. The revisionist is the accused. In the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned by the trial court that the statement of PW- Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jai Kishan, Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kuldeep .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Other .....Opposite Party(s) 1/victim and PW-2- Phulan Devi were already recorded on 7.11.2023 and 6.1.2024 respectively. The cross examinations are already completed. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that in the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, the revisionist did not mention the question that he sought to be asked by the witnesses. The evidence of prosecution was already closed on 1.8.2023. The accused/revisionist constantly filed applications, hence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. could not be recorded. 6. It appears that the accused-revisionist is trying to delay the disposal of session trial on merit, hence the application under Section 311 was rejected. The proper opportunity has been provided to the accused/revisionist before the trial court. 7. In view of the reasons mentioned herein above, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 3.9.2025. 8. In view of above, this criminal revision is not liable to be admitted and is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 9. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. October 7, 2025 sfa/ CRLR No. 6138 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad