Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010281032023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./168/2025 BOLEN DAS S/O LATE THANESHWAR DAS, R/O PIYOLI PHUKAN NAGAR, P.S.- CHANDMARI, P.O.-BAMUNIMAIDAM, DIST.-KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:SRI NIKUNJA MEDHI S/O SRI GOPAL MEDHI R/O PIYOLI PHUKAN NAGAR P.S.-CHANDMARI P.O.-BAMUNIMAIDAM DIST.-KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 21.05.2025 Heard Ms. BRA Sultana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 397/399/402/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in G.R. Case No.7086/2014. 3. The petitioner initiated the prosecution against the Respondent No.2. The charge sheet was filed under Section 420/354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Before the examination of the petitioner, being the informant, the prosecution side examined three witnesses. All the three witnesses examined by prosecution stated before the court that they do not have any knowledge about the occurrence. 4. The petitioner submits that those three witnesses were the witnesses in respect of a money receipt. Since, they deposed before the trial court that they did not have any knowledge about the case, the petitioner, being the informant, appointed one counsel to assist the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner filed an application before the trial court to recall those three witnesses for further examination and cross- examination. The learned trial court refused the prayer of the petitioner. 5. Ms. Sultana submits that under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1870, the court has the power to recall a witness for examination or cross-examination at the instance of the complainant. Page No.# 3/3 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The learned court below held that Section 138 of the Evidence Act says that in the case of re-examination, no new question or fact shall be permitted to be asked without the court’s consent. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned trial court is erroneous. Section 138 of the Evidence Act does not say so. It says that the re- examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross- examination and if new matter is, by permission of the court, introduced in re- examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Trial court is directed to recall PWs.1, 2 and 3 for re-examination by prosecution and for cross-examination by the accused. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant