IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.308 of 2025 Golakha Bihari Sethy and another …. Petitioners Mr. A.K. Barik, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 20.08.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State. 2. No notice is issued to opposite party No.2 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned order dated 24th March, 2025 passed in connection with S.T. Case No.23 of 2021 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anandapur on the grounds stated. 4. Referring to the deposition of P.W.9, namely, I.O of the case, it is submitted by Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioners that the statement of P.W.2 examined during investigation has not been confronted to him, hence, therefore, such an application as per Annexure-2 was moved before the learned court below seeking recall for his further cross- examination but the same has been rejected. The further submission is that such recall of P.W.9 is necessary in the interest of justice and while claiming so, the questions which are to be put to the said witness described in Annexure-2 are brought to the notice of the Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State submits that the recall of P.W.9 has been requested at the stage of argument and rightly, therefore, the learned court below did not consider the same. It is further submitted that proper reasons have been assigned by the learned court below while denying recall of P.W.9 and therefore, the impugned order as at Annexure-3 dated 24th March, 2025 is not be disturbed. 6. The witness sought to be further cross-examined is the I.O. Admittedly, upon a reading of the copy of the deposition as at Annexure-1 series, the Court finds that the statement of P.W.2, namely, Rabindra Sethy was not confronted to him during cross-examination held on 27th August, 2024. The application for recall under Section 348 BNSS has been moved in the month of March, 2025. Of course, the case is pending at the stage of argument as revealed from the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3. In so far as, the exercise of the jurisdiction in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C read with Section 348 BNSS is concerned, it does not envisage any bar seeking recall of a witness for further examination or cross-examination as the case may be also at a belated stage. Law is also well settled that the Court has discretion to exercise in the matter of recall of a witness, if the same is necessary and it can be invoked at any stage of a proceeding even at the fag end of the trial. 7. In the case at hand, the petitioners have approached the learned court below with the application as per Annexure-2. Page 3 of 3 Admittedly, the trial had already been concluded and the case is pending for argument. The recall application was filed on 4th March, 2025, whereas, P.W.9, namely, I.O was examined in 2024. Even though, there has been delay in applying for such recall but as made to reveal from Annexure-3, the statement of P.W.2 was not confronted to the I.O. The Court is, hence, of the view that the learned court below should have exercised the discretion allowing such recall instead of rejecting the same outrightly. In other words, the Court is in favour of recall of P.W.9 for a limited purpose to be confronted with the questions as per Annexure-2 even though, the case is pending at the stage of argument as the same is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24th March, 2025 at Annexure-3 is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anandapur to summon the I.O. namely, P.W.9 for the purpose of further cross- examination with reference to the questionnaire as per Annexure-2 and thereafter, to proceed ensuring disposal of S.T. Case No.23 of 2021 as per and in accordance with. 10. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer