JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice for State of Rajasthan and hence notice need not be issued. 3. The short point which arises for consideration of this Court is that one Dr. Smt. H.V. Singh had been examined by the learned Judge, Special Court, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No. 54/1998 (State v. Moti Chand Ram Prasad). In cross-examination, said. doctor admitted that Ex. P/4 was not written by herself and she further stated that she did not express any opinion with regard to the document Ex. P/4. After completion of the cross-examination, the learned Public Prosecutor requested the trial Court for re-examination of the witness and his request was allowed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners moved an application by raising objection at the outset that since there was no ambiguity in cross-examination of PW 9 and hence there was no need to conduct re-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor but the said application of the petitioners was disallowed and the learned Public Prosecutor was granted opportunity to conduct re-examination of the witness Dr. Smt. H.V. Singh. Thereafter, the request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the re-examination of PW 9, he should be permitted to further cross-examine the witness but the petitioners' request for further cross-examination was disallowed by the learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 29.7.1998. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. In the opinion expressed by PW 9 Dr. Smt. H.V. Singh earlier she had stated that the document Ex. P/4 is not the opinion expressed by herself as regards the offence under section 376 IPC for which the accused were being tried whereas in her cross- examination, she deposed to the contrary by saying that she is in agreement with the report given by the doctor. Hence in view of the said two contradictory versions of Dr. Smt. H.V. Singh, it is necessary in the interest of justice to recall the said witness and thereafter give permission to the learned counsel for the petitioners for further cross-examination of the said witness as it is essential for the just decision of the case. 6. As a result of the above discussion, the Misc. Smt. H.V. Singh, it is necessary in the interest of justice to recall the said witness and thereafter give permission to the learned counsel for the petitioners for further cross-examination of the said witness as it is essential for the just decision of the case. 6. As a result of the above discussion, the Misc. Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.7.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No. 54/1998 (State v. Moti Chand Ram Prasad) is quashed and set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to further proceed with the matter in the light of the aforesaid observations.Petition allowed. *******