JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.106/11, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the accused and has directed that the witnesses P.W.4 the petitioner prosecutrix and P.W.6 Rajendra Pareek be recalled for the purpose of permitting their cross-examination in relation to the issue as to whether the house, where the incident took place had been given as gift to P.W.4 or not. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.6 were examined in the trial Court, they have been put the questions in relation to the gift of the house, therefore, the present attempt, which has been made by the accused for recalling these witnesses is nothing but an attempt to delay the case and in order to tamper the prosecution evidence. He has pointed out the following portions of the cross-examination of these witnesses and submits that sufficient cross-examination in relation to this issue has already been done: esjs eEeh ikik us eq>s edku fn;k Fkk] D;kasfd esjs lkl o llqj igys fdjk;s ij jgrs FksA 10@12@10 dks esjs lkl llqj o ifr edku es vk x;s Fks vkSj ml fnu edku dk eqgwrZ FkkA eqgwrZ esa iwtk djokbZ xbZ FkhS ,slh dksbZ ckr ugh gqbZ Fkh fd iwtk ds ckn lkl] llqj edku esa jgsaxsa vkSj edku cUn ugh gksxkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd nwljs fnu fnukad 11-4-2010 dks esjs eEeh ikik us gekjs ?kj vkdj esjh lkl ls dgk fd edku eSus esjh csVh dks fn;k gS] vki yksxksa dks ugh fn;k] ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjh eEeh us mUgsa edku ls pys tkus ds fy, dgk gksA fQj mlh fnu nksigj dks esjs lkl llqj us lriky lksuh dk edku fdjk;s ij ys fy;k vkSj viuk lkeku ysdj pys x;sA 3. He therefore prays that the order impugned is per se an abuse of the process of the Court as well as gross illegality ad thus, deserves to be quashed. 4. He therefore prays that the order impugned is per se an abuse of the process of the Court as well as gross illegality ad thus, deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent accused submits that the accuseds were desirous of bringing forward their defence in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses but owing to the illness of the Investigating Officer, he has been given up by the prosecution and therefore, the prayer was made by the accused persons for permitting further cross-examination of these two witnesses and the prayer has been rightly allowed. 5. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after carefull consideration of the order impugned as well as the statements of the two witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.6 particularly the portions of the testimony of these two witnesses, which has been quoted above as being a part of the cross-examination, it is apparent that sufficient questions had already been put to the witnesses in relation to the gift of the house. The accused had been given full opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses in this relation and therefore, there was no justification for directing the recall of these two witnesses for being cross-examined further in relation to the issue of the gift of the house. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh is hereby quashed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Stay petition is also disposed of.Stay petition is also disposed of. *******