Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121710 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26235 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking to set aside the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sambhal at Chandausi in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2019 (State vs. Ankur), whereby the application moved by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.-4 (the Investigating Officer, S.I. Chandra Singh) for cross-examination was rejected. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 15.05.2025, the statement of P.W.-4 was recorded, however, due to sudden illness of the applicant’s counsel, cross-examination could not be conducted and an adjournment application was filed on that date. Subsequently, on 23.06.2025, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. supported by an affidavit for recalling P.W.-4, which has been wrongly rejected by the court below without appreciating the genuine circumstances which prevented the counsel from cross-examining the witness. 4. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the said witness (P.W.-4) is a retired police officer residing in Almora, Uttarakhand, and had remained present in court the entire day on 15.05.2025. The defence counsel, despite several calls, failed to appear for cross-examination and instead moved a vague adjournment application later in the day. The matter is marked under the Action Plan and pertains to a POCSO case. Further, the earlier adjournment application gave no clear explanation of illness and only claimed the counsel was engaged elsewhere in cross-examination, which was contradictory to the grounds taken later under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The repeated summoning of a retired witness from another state is not justified and the instant application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the earlier conduct of the defence counsel on 15.05.2025 was evasive, as he initially submitted that he was busy in another cross-examination but later sought adjournment on the ground of sudden illness. No medical certificate or convincing proof of the counsel’s illness was ever placed on record. The court has further noted that the matter is sensitive in nature falling under POCSO Act and is marked under the Action Plan. The witness in question is a retired official residing in a different state, and recalling him repeatedly, especially in light of previous non-diligence by defence, would defeat the spirit of speedy trial. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad