IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 124 Shrafat Ali @ Shrafat Sethi and another State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 dated 02.08.2025 (Annexure P Judge, Kurukshetra in Sessions Case No. 12 of 202 03.05.2019, registered 54 and 59 of the Arms Act (Annexure P-1), whereby the application filed by the petitioner of the witnesses was dismissed 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contends that the the aforesaid FIR Garg. He contends that th recalling the witnesses namely PW PW-2 Rohit Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited and PW Sandeep Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio on the gr witnesses were required to be recalled as they were to be cross IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49168 Date of decision: Shrafat Ali @ Shrafat Sethi and another VERSUS State of Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ r. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of impugned order dated 02.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in Sessions Case No. 12 of 202 registered under Sections 364-A, 387, 201 IPC and Sections 25, 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra 1), whereby the application filed by the petitioner esses was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contends that the petitioners have been nominated as accused in the aforesaid FIR, which has been registered on the complaint of one Kapil Garg. He contends that the petitioners had recalling the witnesses namely PW-21 Vinod Kumar, PW 2 Rohit Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited and PW Sandeep Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio on the gr e required to be recalled as they were to be cross IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 49168-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 04.09.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Advocate, for the petitioners. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of for quashing of impugned order 2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2020 in FIR No. 134 dated A, 387, 201 IPC and Sections 25, Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra 1), whereby the application filed by the petitioners for recalling Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners been nominated as accused in has been registered on the complaint of one Kapil moved an application for 1 Vinod Kumar, PW-3 SI Vijay Kumar, 2 Rohit Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited and PW-13 Sandeep Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio on the ground that the said e required to be recalled as they were to be cross-examined for SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 124 CRM-M-49168 bringing certain material facts for proper adjudication. The dismissed the said application vide the impugned order while recording as under:- “4.After hearing learned Publ learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record carefully, I have reached to a conclusion that the application in hand is without any merits. the prosecution for further cross application it is no where mentioned as to on what specific points the defence wants to cross sought to be recalled. A p Kumar No.1115/KKR has been examined as PW3 on 26.07.2021. Rohit Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited has been examined as PW12 on 14.10.2021 and Sandeep Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio has been examined as PW namely Vinod Kumar Garg has been examined as PW21 on 19.03.2025. All the prosecution witnesses were cross examined at length by learned defence counsel. Thereafter, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P. already been recorded and case is fixed for Even in defence evidence the accused have already examined two witnesses Yashpal Singh, Criminal Ahlmad as DW1 and 49168-2025(O&M) bringing certain material facts for proper adjudication. The said application vide the impugned order while recording as After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record carefully, I have reached to a conclusion that the application in hand is without any merits. It transpires that through the present application, the applicants/accused want to recall the witnesses of the prosecution for further cross-examination. However, in the application it is no where mentioned as to on what specific points the defence wants to cross sought to be recalled. A perusal of record shows that SI Vijay Kumar No.1115/KKR has been examined as PW3 on 26.07.2021. Rohit Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited has been examined as PW12 on 14.10.2021 and Sandeep Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio has been examined as PW13 on 10.12.2021. The prosecution witness namely Vinod Kumar Garg has been examined as PW21 on 19.03.2025. All the prosecution witnesses were cross examined at length by learned defence counsel. Thereafter, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P. already been recorded and case is fixed for Even in defence evidence the accused have already examined two witnesses Yashpal Singh, Criminal Ahlmad as DW1 and 2 bringing certain material facts for proper adjudication. The Trial Court said application vide the impugned order while recording as ic Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record carefully, I have reached to a conclusion that the application It transpires that through the present application, applicants/accused want to recall the witnesses of the examination. However, in the application it is no where mentioned as to on what specific points the defence wants to cross-examine the witnesses erusal of record shows that SI Vijay Kumar No.1115/KKR has been examined as PW3 on 26.07.2021. Rohit Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited has been examined as PW12 on 14.10.2021 and Sandeep Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio has been 13 on 10.12.2021. The prosecution witness namely Vinod Kumar Garg has been examined as PW21 on 19.03.2025. All the prosecution witnesses were cross- examined at length by learned defence counsel. Thereafter, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded and case is fixed fordefence evidence. Even in defence evidence the accused have already examined two witnesses Yashpal Singh, Criminal Ahlmad as DW1 and SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 124 CRM-M-49168 Anil Kumar, Driver as DW2. Hence, the application in hand has been filed the final stage and if the witnesses are recalled it shall not only cause harassment to the witnesses but shall also delay the trial further. There is no dispute about the ratio of law laid down in auth counsel, but with due respect the same are not applicable to the facts of this case being based on distinguishable facts as discussed above. 5.Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Needless to say that anything said or observed in this order is for deciding the present application and shall not affect the merits of the case.” 3. In tune with the reasons recorded by the respondent, counsel for the petitioners with contends that a CDR is evidence mobile phone and the mobile phone decoding register is required to be produced. The same being of evidence, is required to be put to Court. He contends that since the object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the ends of have examined the said aspect and 49168-2025(O&M) Anil Kumar, Driver as DW2. Hence, the application in hand has been filed just to delay the trial. The trial of the case is at the final stage and if the witnesses are recalled it shall not only cause harassment to the witnesses but shall also delay the trial further. There is no dispute about the ratio of law laid down in authorities relied upon by learned defence counsel, but with due respect the same are not applicable to the facts of this case being based on distinguishable facts as discussed above. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the application in hand is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that anything said or observed in this order is for deciding the present application and shall not affect the merits of the case.” In tune with the reasons recorded by the respondent, unsel for the petitioners contends that the prosecution has connected the with the co-accused in the present case by way of CDRs. He contends that a CDR is evidence only to establish the time mobile phone and does not demonstrate the exact positioning phone user at the time of the occurrence. For the said purpose, a decoding register is required to be produced. The same being is required to be put to the witnesses who appeared . He contends that since the object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to ensure ends of justice are met, hence, it was essential for the Trial Court to ined the said aspect and allowed the recall of the witnesses so that 3 Anil Kumar, Driver as DW2. Hence, the application in hand just to delay the trial. The trial of the case is at the final stage and if the witnesses are recalled it shall not only cause harassment to the witnesses but shall also delay the trial further. There is no dispute about the ratio of law orities relied upon by learned defence counsel, but with due respect the same are not applicable to the facts of this case being based on distinguishable facts as Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of application in hand is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that anything said or observed in this order is for deciding the present application and shall not affect the In tune with the reasons recorded by the respondent, learned contends that the prosecution has connected the accused in the present case by way of CDRs. He y to establish the timestamps of a exact positioning or location of at the time of the occurrence. For the said purpose, a decoding register is required to be produced. The same being a crucial piece the witnesses who appeared before the . He contends that since the object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to ensure met, hence, it was essential for the Trial Court to recall of the witnesses so that SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 124 CRM-M-49168 the said aspect could 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition as well as the contents of the application moved by the petitioners before the Trial Court, a copy whereof today in the Court. The same is taken on record as the same shows that no reason said application as to why these wi cross-examination. The same has also been recorded by the Trial Court while declining the said application. 5. Further, that a CDR is not a proof of the available to the prosecution solely to testify with respect to the CDR would not be deemed as a person who is an expert in relation to the scope of CDR and as t whether it is a proof good enough for determining the area of usage or location of an accused. document which has been produced by him/her. The scope of the document and its scope of evidentiary value, document. The witnesses having produced certain document can with respect to the said document and not with respect to any other document that is neither on record nor produced/relied upon by them. petitioners have their claim by referring to law judgment passed by the 49168-2025(O&M) could have been brought on record. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition as well as the contents of the application moved by the petitioners before the Trial Court, a copy whereof Court. The same is taken on record as the same shows that no reason has been assigned by the petitioners in the said application as to why these witnesses are required to be recalled for examination. The same has also been recorded by the Trial Court while declining the said application. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the that a CDR is not a proof of the user’s location, is available to the petitioners and a person who has been examined by the prosecution solely to testify with respect to the CDR would not be deemed as a person who is an expert in relation to the scope of CDR and as t whether it is a proof good enough for determining the area of usage or location of an accused. A person can be questioned only with respect to the document which has been produced by him/her. The scope of the document and its scope of evidentiary value, in law, is not based upon any other document. The witnesses having produced certain document can with respect to the said document and not with respect to any other document that is neither on record nor produced/relied upon by them. have every right to lead evidence in their defence and establish their claim by referring to law. Even though he passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4 have been brought on record. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition as well as the contents of the application moved by the petitioners before the Trial Court, a copy whereof has been handed over Court. The same is taken on record as ‘Mark A’. A perusal of assigned by the petitioners in the tnesses are required to be recalled for examination. The same has also been recorded by the Trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioners location, is a ground even otherwise and a person who has been examined by the prosecution solely to testify with respect to the CDR would not be deemed as a person who is an expert in relation to the scope of CDR and as to whether it is a proof good enough for determining the area of usage or A person can be questioned only with respect to the document which has been produced by him/her. The scope of the document in law, is not based upon any other document. The witnesses having produced certain document can testify only with respect to the said document and not with respect to any other document that is neither on record nor produced/relied upon by them. The evidence in their defence and establish he has placed reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 124 CRM-M-49168 1021 of 2022 with MA No. 1144 of 202 “Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.” decoding register is a crucial and vital piece of evidence and is thus required to be produced for just decision of the case, however, the said judgment wa rendered in a converse situation. 6. The oblivious of the cause of the petitioners recall the witness were confronted that CDR is not sufficient to establish location, hence, the prosecution itself intended to produce the decoding register order to further its case produce the said evidence for just and proper adjudication. In the present case, the petitioners decoding register, however, examine them in relation to aspects that they may not be privy to. Further, there is nothing on record in the testimony that has been brought before this Court that the said witnesses have in any manner deposed in the Examination-in- person and no cross petitioners despite said witnesses having testified affirma the petitioner on the basis of CDR and in the absence of the decoding register, the petitioner is always at liberty to impeach the admissibility of the evidence to such extent by referring to the position in law as ex 49168-2025(O&M) 1021 of 2022 with MA No. 1144 of 2022 decided on 08.08.2022 titled “Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.” decoding register is a crucial and vital piece of evidence and is thus required for just decision of the case, however, the said judgment wa rendered in a converse situation. The said judgment has been cited before oblivious of the application of the same. The same would not advance the petitioners insofar as their contention about the witnesses is concerned. In the said case were confronted that CDR is not sufficient to establish location, hence, the itself intended to produce the decoding register order to further its case. The Supreme Court allowed the prosecution to produce the said evidence for just and proper adjudication. In the present petitioners do not want to adduce the decoding register, however, they want to recall examine them in relation to aspects that they may not be privy to. Further, there is nothing on record in the testimony that has been brought before this Court that the said witnesses have in any manner deposed in the -Chief to the effect that the CDR is proof of the no cross-examination was ever done despite an opportunity having been granted. said witnesses having testified affirmatively with respect to the location of the petitioner on the basis of CDR and in the absence of the decoding register, the petitioner is always at liberty to impeach the admissibility of the evidence to such extent by referring to the position in law as ex 5 2 decided on 08.08.2022 titled “Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.”to contend that a decoding register is a crucial and vital piece of evidence and is thus required for just decision of the case, however, the said judgment was before this Court while being of the same. The same would not advance the contention about the requirement to concerned. In the said case, the prosecution witnesses were confronted that CDR is not sufficient to establish location, hence, the itself intended to produce the decoding register as evidence in . The Supreme Court allowed the prosecution to produce the said evidence for just and proper adjudication. In the present the record pertaining to the to recall the witnesses to cross- examine them in relation to aspects that they may not be privy to. Further, there is nothing on record in the testimony that has been brought before this Court that the said witnesses have in any manner deposed in the Chief to the effect that the CDR is proof of the location of a was ever done on any of the aspects by the opportunity having been granted. In the absence of the tively with respect to the location of the petitioner on the basis of CDR and in the absence of the decoding register, the petitioner is always at liberty to impeach the admissibility of the evidence to such extent by referring to the position in law as explained by SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 124 CRM-M-49168 the Supreme Court of India. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘ Prahlad Jat and others circumstances in which a judicial discretion could be exercised under Section 311 of Cr “17. render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stag proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt ou order. 18. Court while explaining scope and ambit of Section 311 has held as under: (SCC p. 141, para 17) 49168-2025(O&M) the Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘ Prahlad Jat and others’ reported as 2017 (9) SCC 340 circumstances in which a judicial discretion could be exercised under Section 311 of CrPC. The relevant paras thereof read 17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stag proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt ou order. 18. In Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. (2011) 8 SCC 136], this Court while explaining scope and ambit of Section 311 has held as under: (SCC p. 141, para 17) 6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Ratanlal vs 2017 (9) SCC 340 culled out the circumstances in which a judicial discretion could be exercised under The relevant paras thereof read as under:- In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the In Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. (2011) 8 SCC 136], this Court while explaining scope and ambit of Section 311 has held as under: (SCC p. 141, para 17) SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 124 CRM-M-49168 19. 3 SCC 374, this Court has considered the concept underlying under Section 311 as under: (SCC p. 392, para 27) 49168-2025(O&M) “17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in th discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of [CrPC] and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously.” 19. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374, this Court has considered the concept underlying under Section 311 as under: (SCC p. 392, para 27) “27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the s witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether itis essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and emp Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised 7 “17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of [CrPC] and the principles of criminal law. The wer conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously.” In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374, this Court has considered the concept underlying under Section 311 as under: (SCC p. 392, para 27) “27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether itis essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 124 CRM-M-49168 20. SCC 402, it was held thus: (SCC pp. 404g 8. Since the petitioner is at liberty to raise the legal argument in relation to the scope of the evidentiary value of a document, I fail to understand as to how dismissal of application for recall of witnesses is likely to occasion failure of justice. The pe down by the Supreme Court and confront prosecution and argument of CDR being used to refer to location, in the absence of decoding register/details. A witness is not required to be confronted with law a 49168-2025(O&M) judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind 20. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016) 2 SCC 402, it was held thus: (SCC pp. 404g “… Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observ recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, justify the recall of witnesses already examined Since the petitioner is at liberty to raise the legal argument in relation to the scope of the evidentiary value of a document, I fail to understand as to how dismissal of application for recall of witnesses is likely failure of justice. The petitioner can always refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and confront prosecution and argument of CDR being used to refer to location, in the absence of decoding register/details. A witness is not required to be confronted with law a 8 judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.” State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016) 2 SCC 402, it was held thus: (SCC pp. 404g-405a) “… Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be usly to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined.” (Emphasis supplied)” Since the petitioner is at liberty to raise the legal argument in relation to the scope of the evidentiary value of a document, I fail to understand as to how dismissal of application for recall of witnesses is likely titioner can always refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and confront prosecution and counter the argument of CDR being used to refer to location, in the absence of decoding register/details. A witness is not required to be confronted with law as laid SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 124 CRM-M-49168 down and every party is free to raise a legal argument. Besides, the Court does not find that recalling of the witnesses is necessary for a just decision. This satisfaction of a Court is not to be substituted for the satisfaction of the litigating party. 8. For learned counsel for the petitioners herein. Consequently, finding no illegality, the present petition 9. Pending application(s) accordingly. 04.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 49168-2025(O&M) down and every party is free to raise a legal argument. Besides, the Court does not find that recalling of the witnesses is necessary for a just decision. This satisfaction of a Court is not to be substituted for the satisfaction of the arty. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not come to the aid of the petitioner onsequently, finding no illegality, the present petition Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 9 down and every party is free to raise a legal argument. Besides, the Court does not find that recalling of the witnesses is necessary for a just decision. This satisfaction of a Court is not to be substituted for the satisfaction of the aforementioned reasons, the judgment cited by the does not come to the aid of the petitioners onsequently, finding no illegality, the present petition is dismissed. , if any, shall stand disposed of (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document