Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38146 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5439 of 2025 Applicant :- Sabhajeet Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey,Vibhanshu Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Dubey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 20.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act-III, District Ayodhya in Special Session Trial No.61 of 2017, whereby an application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of PW1 and PW2 has been rejected. 3. In the application dated 12.02.2024 filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the applicant had stated that the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 has been concluded on various dates but due to inadvertence some necessary questions could not be asked from them, due to which the decision of the matter on its merits would not be possible. 4. The learned Additional District Government Counsel opposed the application by written endorsement made on the application itself stating that the examination-in-chief of PW-1 was conducted on 03.07.2019 and his cross-examination commenced on the same date, which continued on 14.10.2019, 22.02.2022 and 14.03.2022. The examination-in-chief of PW-2 was conducted on 27.04.2022 and she was cross-examined on four dates and ultimately her cross-examination concluded on 22.06.2022. PW-1 and PW-2 have been cross examined extensively. The defense has availed sufficient opportunity for examining the prosecution witnesses. The learned ADGC also contended that the applicant is seeking recall of PW-1 and PW- 2 in an attempt to get them declared hostile. The learned ADGC relied upon the decisions in the cases of Udaiveer Vs. State of U.P.: 2002 ALJ 173, Riyajuddin Vs. State of U.P. 2001 CRLJ 3907 and Mangesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2006 CRLJ 1436. 5. The trial court has observed in the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 that PW-1 has been cross-examined on four dates and PW-2 has been cross-examined on three dates which shows that the defence has availed adequate opportunity to cross- examine the aforesaid witnesses. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed two years after closure of the prosecution evidence and no cause has been assigned for this delay in filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The applicant has not disclosed the points on which he seeks to put questions to the witnesses after their recall. The learned trial court also observed that it appears that the recall of witnesses is being sought possibly to get them declared hostile. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no material before the trial court to put on record its assumption that the recall of witnesses is being sought in an attempt to get the witnesses declared hostile. 7. The application for recall or reexamination/further examination under Section 311 CR.P.C. can be moved if it appears to be essential for just decision of the case. The trial court has rightly observed that when both prosecution witnesses have been extensively cross-examined on numerous dates and no point has been disclosed on which their further cross- examination is necessary, there was no material to make out a case that it would be essential for just decision of the case to order re-examination of PW-1 and PW-2. 8. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 rejecting permission for recall of PW-1 and PW-2 about two years after completion of their cross-examination However, this court finds that the observation made in the impugned order that the recall of witnesses was being sought in an attempt to get them declared hostile is unwarranted. 9. Accordingly, the application is disposed of by observing that the observation made in the order dated 20.03.2024 that the applicant is seeking recall of witnesses in an effort to get them hostile shall not influence the prosecution or the trial court and the trial shall be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by the aforesaid observation. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench