Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67313 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4942 of 2024 Revisionist :- Fareed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ruby Goutam,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 8.7.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2023 (State Vs. Fareed) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the trial court, without considering the contents of the application filed by the revisionist, had rejected the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has admitted before this Court that the questions, he wishes to ask from P.W.-1, have already been asked from the witness but not in a satisfactory manner. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the trial court, while rejecting the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had recorded a categorical finding that the questions, which are the subject matter of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., have already been asked from the P.W.-1 and that is why learned trial court had rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 8.7.2024. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the contents of the order dated 8.7.2024, which is impugned in this criminal revision. 7. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist that the questions, which are subject matter of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., have already been asked from the P.W.-1 but not in a satisfactory manner. 8. Once it is admitted on behalf of the revisionist that the questions, subject matter of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., have already been asked from the P.W.-1, there cannot be any occasion for the trial court to recall the said witness, in exercise of its power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad