HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1130 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Maneesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Gonda in Sessions Trial No.390 of 2020, State vs. Darshan Singh and others, whereby the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that in the application, filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 for their cross-examination, detailed reasons have been given and points of cross-examination have also been disclosed but the learned trial court, while passing the impugned order dated 18.09.2025, has not considered those points of cross-examination for which revisionist wants that the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 may be recalled. 4. Shri Maneesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the order impugned in this criminal revision, on its face, reflects that the learned trial court has not applied its mind to the contents of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Maneesh Kumar Singh, Navita Sharma, Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Randheer Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) opposed the criminal revision but could not justify the order impugned in this criminal revision. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court is empowered to recall the witnesses for recording of their testimony again. The Legislature had inserted Section 311 in the Code of Criminal Procedure with the intention that if at the stage of recording of examination-in-chief or cross-examination some relevant questions could not be put to the witness, then he may be recalled, so that there may not be miscarriage of justice. 7. In the case at hand, it is apparent that the revisionist while filing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had given detailed reasons and had also disclosed the points on which he intends to cross-examine the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 18.09.2025, it is apparent that the learned trial court has not considered the reasons given by the revisionist in his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and only by recording vague findings had proceeded to reject the application. 8. This Court is of the view that the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., needs to be reconsidered by the learned trial court. 9. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Gonda, in Sessions Trial No.390 of 2020, State vs. Darshan Singh and others, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial court to consider and decide the revisionist's application, filed under section 311 Cr.P.C., afresh within two weeks from the date of service of certified copy of this order. October 7, 2025 akhilesh/- CRLR No. 1130 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench