2026:UHC:1072 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 103 of 2026 Arshad Ali ............Revisionist. Vs. State of Uttarakhand ............Respondent. Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order passed by the Special Judge, POCSO, Haldwani dated 29.01.2026 in Special Session Trial No. 74 of 2022, whereby, the application moved the revisionist/accused under section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that infact most of the star witnesses have become hostile. Two separate applicants were moved under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the two witnesses PW2-the mother of the victim and PW4-Dr. Ritu Punetha for their cross examining in respect of limited questions i.e. the garments, which were sent for chemical analysis. 5. Learned A.G.A. Mr. Tumul Nainwal submits that this is nothing but a delaying tactics since the FSL report received in 2023 and on 22.01.2026 he has moved these two separate applications under section 311 of Cr.P.C. though as per the mandate of POCSO Act every trial relates to the POCSO Act has to be expedited within one year. 6. Be that as it may, since the revisionist (accused) want to cross examine only two witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW4 only to limited issue which relates to FSL report, therefore, for substantial justice only one opportunity can be given to cross-examine these two witnesses PW2 and PW4. 7. In such view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Special Judge, POCSO 2026:UHC:1072 dated 29.01.2026 is set aside and both the applications moved under section 311 of Cr.P.C. are allowed and the revisionist is permitted to cross-examine the two witnesses PW2 and PW4 only for limited issue relating to FSL report. 8. Mr. Tumul Nainwal submits that let the liberty be given to the revisionist to cross-examine PW2 and PW4 by giving a specific date and if the revisionist failed to cross-examine both the witnesses on a particular date then no further date be given. 9. This court is fully agree with the submissions as advanced by Mr. Tumul Nainwal. 10. In such view of the matter, the instant revision is disposed of finally by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 29.01.2026 and the Trial Court is directed to give only one opportunity to the revisionist to cross-examine two witnesses PW2 and PW4 only for the limited issue of FSL report by fixing a specific date. 11. It is further made clear that the Trial Court will not give any further date to cross-examine these two witnesses and if the revisionist failed to cross-examine then the Trial Court will proceed and expedite the trial keeping in view the mandate of POCSO Act. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 18.02.2026 PR 2026:UHC:1072