Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10157 Court No. - 18 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1248 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Sharama Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 2-By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has challenged the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 536 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 662 of 2018, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 19.12.2024 of the accused- applicant has been rejected by the trial court. 3-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that examination-in- chief of the investigating officer (PW-5) was recorded on 13.10.2022 but on that day, counsel for the applicant could not bring the concerned file, therefore, next date was fixed but thereafter on many dates, investigating officer (PW-5) did not appear. On 07.11.2023 when PW-5 appeared before the trial Court, applicant has sent an application for exemption of his personal appearance and due to some unavoidable reasons, his counsel also could not appear, therefore, cross- examination could not be done on that day. The trial Court has illegally closed the opportunity of cross-examination of the applicant with the investigating officer, which has caused injustice to the applicant. Hence applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. but the same has illegally rejected by the trial Court. 4-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the examination-in-chief of the investigating officer/PW-5 was recorded on 13.10.2022 but on that date, learned counsel for the accused- applicant did not cross-examine, therefore, further date was fixed for 01.11.2022 but on that date too, an exemption application has been moved from the side of accused-applicant. On 07.11.2023, the investigating officer/PW-5 was appeared but on that date also, counsel for the accused-applicant has moved an adjournment application, which was rejected. Since the counsel for the accused-applicant was not inclined for cross-examination and was deliberately trying to linger-on the trial proceeding, therefore, opportunity for cross-examination was closed by the trial court. After recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 07.02.2024, the matter was fixed for final argument on 08.04.2024 but on that date also, counsel for the accused-applicant did not argue the matter and on 19.04.2024, accused-applicant has engaged another counsel and moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of investigating officer with ulterior motive without any legal basis. Much emphasis has been given by contending that it is an old matter of the year 2019 but the accused- applicant, adopting different modus-operandi, are delaying the trial proceedings, hence, the said application of the applicant has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. 5-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that the opportunity of cross- examination of the investigating officer/PW-5 was closed on 07.11.2023, which was very much in the knowledge of the applicant and his counsel but neither the said order dated 07.11.2023 was challenged by the applicant nor any application was moved to recall the order dated 07.11.2023 and at the fag end of the trial, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved for recalling PW-5. There is no plausible explanation of long delay in moving an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.Allowing or rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No straight jacket formula can be applied for the said purpose. In the present case, the applicant was given sufficient opportunity for cross examination but he has not availed the same as noted above. 6-Under the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that presumption, observations and findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are fully sustainable. The trial Court has committed no illegality in rejecting the application of the applicant. There appears no abuse of the process of the Court also. I do not find manifest error of law or perversity in the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the trial court. 7-Accordingly, no interference is required. 8-The instant application lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench