Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11343 Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1242 of 2025 Applicant :- Abid Anwar Hashmi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Tamjeed Ahmad,Shailendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Syed Tamjeed Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed following reliefs: "(i) To pass an order hereby quashing the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Balrampur in Criminal Revision No. 150/2024, on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the accompanying petition. (ii) To disallow the application dated 16.08.2024 moved by the prosecution in trial of Case Crime No.136 of 2020, Police Station Saadullanagar, Balrampur, seeking recall of PW-1. (iii) To pass any other order or direction to prevent such abuse of the process or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, by exercising the powers conferred on this Hon'ble Court under Section 428 Cr.P.C." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that this is a case where PW-1 was examined on 27th June, 2024 and crossed examined on 20th July, 2024, thereafter, examination of said witness has been closed fixing next date for 16th August, 2024, but the prosecution has filed an application on 16th August, 2024 for reexamination of PW-1. Learned counsel stated that law is trite that if such application is filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the cogent and strong reasons must be there inasmuch as such application may not be filed to fill up the lacuna. Learned counsel has further submitted that during course of cross examination, the PW-1 has categorically apprised on pin point question that he is illiterate person and had made signature on one written paper provided by one Tauqir Ahmad. Learned counsel has submitted that if the prosecution was willing to reexamination PW-1, such exercise must have been undertaken immediately thereafter, inasmuch as the P.O. was present at the time of cross examination of PW-1. If the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is filed after giving some thought to fill up the lacuna, such application should be turned down. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial court has rightly turned down the application of the prosecution vide reasoned order dated 20th September, 2024, but the revisional court allowed the revision, set-aside the order of trial court dated 20th September, 2024 remanding back the said application of the prosecution to the learned trial court for reexamination of witness in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Learned counsel has submitted with vehement that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application of prosecution vide order dated 20th September, 2024 and the impugned revisional order dated 17th January, 2025 is liable to be set-aside. 5. Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA has submitted that the learned revisional court has passed a speaking and reasoned order dated 17th January, 2025 indicating therein that learned trial court has not held that which lacuna prosecution is trying to fill up by the said application and the prosecution has right to seek an opportunity of reexamination under Section 137 read with section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. Sri Singh has further submitted that aforesaid application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on the date fixed, therefore, such application may not be treated as if the same has been filed to delay the trail. Therefore, the order of the revisional court is justifiable. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused material evidence on record, I am also of the considered opinion that the prosecution or defence, as the case may be, has got right of reexamination under Section 137 read with section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the present case, by means of application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the request for reexamination of PW-1 was made and that application was rejected by the learned trial court but the revisional court set-aside the order of the learnend trial court remanding back such application to the learned trial court for reexamination of the witness strictly in accordance with law. While passing the aforesaid order dated 17th January, 2025, I am of the view that the revisional court has not committed any error. However, if at the time of re-examining the PW-1, the prosecution tries to fill up the lacuna, the specific objections may be raised by the applicant/his counsel. Even after reexamination of PW-1 he may again be cross examined by the petitioner or his counsel strictly as per law. The learned trial court shall also remain careful to see as to whether the reexamination of PW-1 is to fill the lacuna or not. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the revisional order dated 17th January, 2025, so this application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Order Date :- 21.2.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench