JUDGMENT : 1. Present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist being aggrieved against the order dated 05.02.2016, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Special Sessions Trial no. 103 of 2014, State vs. Rajendra, whereby learned trial court rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 2. The revisionist wants to further cross-examine PW1 (victim), whose examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination was recorded in-camera on 10.12.2014, 18.02.2015 and 04.03.2015. Whereas the examination-in-chief was recorded in-camera on 10.12.2014, part cross-examination and rest of the cross-examination was done on 10.12.2014, 18.02.2015 and 04.03.2015. Thus, the accused-revisionist had opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix on three different dates. On the first day, the cross-examination was deferred on the application of the accused. On the second day also, probably, the cross-examination was deferred on his request, inasmuch as only one page of cross-examination was recorded. On the third day, the cross-examination was completed. Thus the accused-revisionist had every opportunity to ask any (relevant) question to the prosecutrix, who is a victim of rape. 3. A perusal of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. will indicate that the accused-revisionist, who is on bail, wants to cross-examine PW1 again on the point of her age, her love relationship, medical examination etc., which facts can still be proved on behalf of the accused-revisionist in his defence evidence, which is yet to be recorded. Needless to say that it is not necessary for the accused-revisionist to ask any question to any witness, much less the prosecutrix, which is legal in nature. Although almost of the relevant questions have been asked on behalf of the accused to the prosecutrix, but presuming that some questions are still relevant, which are required to be brought on record, the accused-revisionist has ample opportunity to do so in his defence evidence and the legal questions can still be argued by him when the trial court fixes a date for argument of the parties. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed on behalf of the accused-revisionist does not fall within the ambit of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 5. Criminal revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Stay application no. 187 of 2016 also stands disposed of.