Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55877 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1108 of 2025 Revisionist :- Meena And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alok Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 13.2.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(P.O.C.S.O. Act), Court No. 28, Agra in Special Case No. 1991 of 2016 (State Vs. Smt. Meena) whereby, the application filed by the revisionists for cross- examination of P.W.-1, had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that the prosecution produced P.W.-1 before the trial court on 25.11.2022 and her examination-in-chief was recorded. On the same day, P.W.- 1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the accused but since the cross-examination could not be completed therefore, P.W.-1 again appeared before the trial court on 11.1.2023 and her cross-examination was completed. Since in the cross- examination P.W.-1 did not support the prosecution version therefore, the prosecution requested the trial court to re-examine P.W.-1 and the said request was accepted and P.W.-1 was re- examined by the prosecution. 4. It has further been contended that since the trial court permitted the prosecution to re-examine P.W.-1 therefore, an application was filed on behalf of the accused for further cross-examination of P.W.-1 but the said application had been rejected by the order which is impugned in this criminal revision. 5. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist has argued that once the trial court permitted the prosecution to re-examine P.W.-1, the trial court was under obligation to allow the learned counsel appearing for the accused to further cross-examine P.W.-1 but in most illegal manner the application filed on behalf of the accused for further cross- examination of P.W.-1 had been rejected. It has further been argued that once any witness is allowed to be re-examined by the prosecution, then the part of the testimony which had come before the trial court during re-examination, needs to be checked by the further cross-examination of the said witness. 6. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that the order impugned in this criminal revision is unsustainable in the eyes of law and this Court may issue a direction to the trial court to summon P.W.-1 and the learned counsel appearing for the accused may be permitted to cross-examine her. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 though tried to defend the order passed by the trial court but could not give any satisfactory reply to the fact that when the prosecution had been permitted to re-examine P.W.- 1, then why the accused is not entitled for further cross- examination of P.W.-1. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have consented that the order impugned in this criminal revision may be set aside and a direction may be issued to the trial court to recall P.W.-1 for her further cross- examination. The only submission which has been made by the learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties is that this Court may fix one particular date for appearance of P.W.-1 and learned counsel appearing for the accused may complete his further cross-examination on that date itself, so that the delay in conclusion of the trial may be avoided. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that P.W.-1 appeared before the trial court on 25.11.2022 and her examination-in-chief was recorded thereafter she was cross-examined on behalf of the accused and that cross-examination was completed on 11.1.2023. Since in the cross-examination, P.W.-1 did not support the prosecution version, the prosecution requested the trial court to re- examine the P.W.-1 and that request was accepted and P.W.-1 had been re-examined by the prosecution on 11.1.2023. Since, in the re-examination there is a change in the testimony of P.W.-1 therefore, the necessity arose for further cross-examination of P.W.-1 and accordingly an application was filed on behalf of the accused for her further cross-examination. The trial court had rejected the application filed on behalf of the accused for further cross-examination of P.W.-1 without assigning any cogent reason. 10. This Court is of the view that once prosecution was permitted to re-examine the P.W.-1, then the accused is entitled to put the P.W.-1 under cross-examination for that part of the testimony which had been recorded in her re-examination. Even otherwise learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have consented that the order impugned in this criminal revision may be set aside and a direction may be issued to the trial court for calling upon P.W.-1 for her further cross- examination. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 13.2.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(P.O.C.S.O. Act), Court No. 28, Agra in Special Case No. 1991 of 2016 (State Vs. Smt. Meena) is hereby set aside. The trial court is hereby directed to recall P.W.-1 fixing one particular date for her further cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. 12. It is made clear that the trial court would fix only one date and on that date itself, further cross-examination shall be completed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad