IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 508 of 2024 ------ Md. Moiuddin@Mister@Md. Moinuddin@Moinuddin Ansari aged about 43 years son of Md. Samsuddin. R/o village Kanhachati, PO and PS-Rajpur District-Chatra .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, Advocate ------ Order No.06/Dated: 10.01.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure is directed against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, III Chatra in M.C.A No. 1485 of 2023 whereby an application under section 311 filed on behalf of the present petitioner who happened to be accused in the ST Case No. 389 of 2018 for recall of the witness namely Salauddin (PW4) for cross-examination, has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to illness of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, some important questions regarding the time and manner of occurrence could not be asked from PW-4 as he was cross- examined by junior counsel. The learned trial Court without considering the fact that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced due to non effective cross-examination of PW-4 and passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, is not justified in the eyes of law. 4. The learned counsel for the State opposed and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the proceeding of the case, at present, is at the stage of recording statement of accused person under section 313 CrPC. Therefore, this petition is perfectly fit to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and also perused the record. The main question raised by the petitioner is that witness Salauddin (PW-4) could not be effectively cross- examined, although the witness has been discharged after cross- examination. In my considered view, the re-opening of the case only on the ground of further cross-examination of the witnesses, on the ground stated by the learned counsel that the witness has not been cross-examined by the senior counsel of the petitioner, cannot be entertained. 6. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Abha/