JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Mishra holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri J.K. Chaturvedi holding brief of Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the complainant. 2. This is a revision against the order dated 6-1-2004 passed by Sri Gulab Singh Rathor, Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S.T. 788 of 2002 State v. Sanjai. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the revisionist Sanjai and co-accused Raj Kumar and Dharmveer are involved in Case Crime No. 541/2000 of Police Station Khurja Nagar District Bulandshahr under Section 302, I.P.C. Three separate charge-sheets were submitted against these accused persons and on the basis thereof Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2001, State v. Dharmveer Singh, 788 of 2002, State v. Sanjai and 467 of 2002, State v. Raj Kumar were registered against the accused Dharmveer Singh, Sanjai and Raj Kumar separately. Since all these sessions trial pertain to the same incident, the sessions trials were being heard jointly and evidence was being recorded in S.T. No. 67/01. P.W. 1 Mohan Lal Gupta was produced in the above sessions trials on 3-9-2002. He was cross-examined on 2-4-2003 firstly by learned Counsel for the accused Raj Kumar and thereafter by the then learned Counsel for the remaining accused, and then the witness was discharged. Thereafter the accused Sanjai engaged a new Counsel and his new Counsel moved an application for further cross-examination of P.W. 1. That application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Aggrieved with that order Sanjai filed this revision. 4. It is to be seen that P.W. 1 Mohan Lal Gupta has been sufficiently cross- examined by the then learned Counsel for the revisionist and in this view of the mater there was no justification for permitting further cross-examination of the witness on the engagement of a new Counsel by the accused revisionist. 4. It is to be seen that P.W. 1 Mohan Lal Gupta has been sufficiently cross- examined by the then learned Counsel for the revisionist and in this view of the mater there was no justification for permitting further cross-examination of the witness on the engagement of a new Counsel by the accused revisionist. In case the new Counsel of the accused revisionist was of the view that some important questions, which were relevant and essential for just decision of the case, could not be asked from the P.W. 1 in his cross-examination, the proper procedure was to specify those questions and seek permission from the Court to put those specified questions with a prayer to recall the witness for putting those questions, and if any such application had been moved by the accused revisionist, the Court could pass suitable orders on that application considering the aspect whether those questions had been put to that witness or not and whether re-examination of the witness is essential for putting those questions to him in the interest of fair trial of the case, and if the Court reached the conclusion that those questions were essential for that purpose, it could permit re-examination of the witness on those questions only. But the learned Counsel for the revisionist did not move any such application. He moved an application for further cross-examination of the witness which was not permissible when the opportunity of cross-examination of the witness had been availed and the witness had been cross-examined by the previous Counsel of the revisionist. Learned trial Court did not commit any illegality by rejecting that application. The order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality. The revision has thus got no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay order stands vacated. 5. However, as observed above, the accused revisionist shall be at liberty to move an application before the trial Court for permission to recall P.W. 1 for reply of certain specified questions which, according to him, are relevant and essential for just decision of the sessions trial and were not put to the witness by his previous Counsel, and if any such application is moved, the learned Presiding Officer of the Court, after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties on that application, shall decide that application on merits. ————