JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.A. Zaidi, J.—Applicant is an accused in S.T. No. 1263 of 2006 (State of U.P. v. Dheeraj) pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffar Nagar. 2. He has come to this Court under Section 407, Cr.P.C. The facts relating to this application are that the Trial Judge summoned the prosecution witnesses complainant P.W. 1 Naseem, his wife P.W. 2 Smt. Naseema and P.W. 4 Rafikan for re-examination after they were declared hostile, cross-examined and discharged. The applicant says that on 29-11-2007, when P.W. 1 Naseem appeared for re-examination, the Trial Judge threatened him, saying that in case he did not support the prosecution case, besides punishing the accused, he will punish him too, and why had he not brought alongwith him, his wife P.W. 2 Smt. Naseema. The Trial Judge re-examined P.W. 2 Smt. Naseema on 8-1-2008, despite, that the defence Counsel, was ill and an application was moved seeking adjournment. For all these reasons, the applicant had reason to believe that justice, may not be done, to him. 3. I have heard Sri Amit Krishna, Advocate for the accused-applicant and Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Additional Government Advocate for the State. 4. As will appear from the aforenoted facts, the Trial Judge has not exceeded his limits and has not demonstrated in any manner a partisan attitude. The decision to recall the witnesses was made with a view to discover the truth. The age of the prosecutrix is 8 year and the medical examination report mentions that the Hymen was torn and there was redness in the area, which prima facie indicates, that she was subjected to sexual assault. The accused was named in the F.I.R. lodged by the father, and now he turns round and denies the involvement of the accused and so does the mother, and the other witnesses, which clearly indicates that there is something wrong somewhere. 5. The desideratum of a judicial trial is the discovery of truth, and a Judge, must make all efforts within the parameter of law, to unearth the truth. The judge cannot go round and meet people at the place of occurrence, and, try to find out things for himself as used to be done previously, by Adjudicators. The Judge has to confine his activities to the Court-room and try to uncover the real facts by summoning witnesses, and by asking them about the incident. The judge cannot go round and meet people at the place of occurrence, and, try to find out things for himself as used to be done previously, by Adjudicators. The Judge has to confine his activities to the Court-room and try to uncover the real facts by summoning witnesses, and by asking them about the incident. This is not only the right, but the duty of the Judge. He not supposed to be a passive spectator or a Tape Recorder of the evidence. He has to actively participate in the proceedings, with a view, to find out the real truth. If he does not do so, he will abdicating his functions. 6. The judge in this case should have initially, put the requisite questions to the witnesses when they were declared hostile. In any case, the realisation dawned upon him later, and he has rectified his short-coming, and recalled the witnesses, for putting necessary questions to them. 7. The judge has done the right thing, in recalling the witnesses in order to ascertaining the truth. The allegations that the judge threatened the witness, if he did not support the prosecution, seems clearly erroneous and has been denied by the judge, and seems to have been introduced with a view, to provide fodder for transfer application. 8. In consequence, it cannot be said that Trial Judge adopted any partisan attitude, or is hostile, to the accused. 9. However, it has been mentioned from the side of the accused, when the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix was recorded, the Counsel for the accused had given application for adjournment, on the ground of his illness which was rejected by the Court. It is necessary in the interest of justice, that proper opportunity be provided to the accused, for cross-examining the witnesses, because, that is the only way in which he can demolish the credibility of the witnesses. 10. As such, if no cross-examination was conducted at the time of re-examination of the mother of the prosecutrix, another opportunity will be provided to the Counsel, for the accused, for cross-examining the lady. 11. With these observations, the transfer application is rejected. ————