ORDER : Heard the learned SPP-II for State. 2. Perused the orders impugned under this petition. 3. In S.C.No.333/2010 on the file of the LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, it appears the Public Prosecutor has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., requesting the Court for recalling P.W.26 for further examination-in-chief and to call C.W.49 for giving evidence. The said application, after contest, came to be rejected. Same is called in question before this Court. 4. On careful perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it revealed that P.W.26 is a doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased in connection with the said case. He was fully examined in-chief and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.26 has given some admissions, but there was no ambiguity in the evidence. The learned prosecutor neither treated the witness as hostile nor re-examined the said witness at that point of time. Thereafter, it appears an application was moved for recalling of the said witness for further examination-in-chief. In the application, it is stated that the witness has given some indifferent answers in the course of cross-examination and in order to correct the same, the prosecution would like to recall the said witness. The Trial Court has observed that there are no other special reasons assigned seeking permission for further examination-in-chief of P.W.26. The Court observed that once the cross-examination is done, there must be some special reasons for recalling of the witness for further examination-in-chief, i.e., if anything is left out while examining the witness in further examination-in-chief or for the purpose of eliciting any new facts which arise subsequent to the cross-examination of that witness, no such situation was pleaded by the prosecution. Therefore, the Court has definitely come to the conclusion that in order to overcome the admissions taken by the defence counsel during the course of cross-examination, the application was filed for further examination-in-chief of this witness and Court held that there may not be any scope for recalling the witness. Therefore, it dismissed the application. 5. On re-looking into the order passed by the Trial Court, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. On the other hand, the Court has given permission to examine C.W.49 while allowing the said application partly. 6. Therefore, it dismissed the application. 5. On re-looking into the order passed by the Trial Court, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. On the other hand, the Court has given permission to examine C.W.49 while allowing the said application partly. 6. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.