JUDGMENT : SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J. 1. The impugned Order No. 24 dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Sealdah in connection with ST No. 4(3)16/(CIS-74/15) rejecting the application of the revisionist petitioner dated 25.07.2018 praying for further cross-examination of PW1 after recalling her on the grounds as set forth therein, is the subject of challenge in this revisional application. 2. Learned advocate for the revisionist submitted that for just decision of this case, further cross-examination of PW 1 was felt necessary by allowing recalling/re-examination. It was thus according to revisionist, that several material questions revealing animosity between the parties, because of pendency of several criminal cases against the revisionist/accused, including omissions and contradictions, recorded in the statement of witnesses, could not be put to PW 1 during cross-examination, as a result of which the defence was made to suffer serious prejudice. Further cross-examination under the behest of the order under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was alleged to be obligatory for the just decision of this case. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Panda representing the State controverting the submission raised by the revisionist, submitted that thrice PW1 was subjected to cross-examination i.e. on 19.04.17, 16.05.17 and 03.05.18 covering all necessary points in order to establish and/or put up an effective defence in the instant trial of this case. The power of the Court, under Section 311 Cr. P.C, according to State, should not be allowed to be sparingly utilised, because the extent of cross-examination of PW.1 together with the evidence witnesses, still left to be recorded, would be sufficient enough to unfold the version of the prosecution case. 4. Learned Court below by the impugned order rejected the prayer for further cross-examination of PW 1 observing therein that in spite of getting several opportunities, thereby concluding the cross-examination of PW 1, the instant exercise undertaken by petitioner with a prayer for further cross-examination of PW 1 was nothing, but to drag the case, and also fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Accordingly the petition dated 25.07.2018 filed by the revisionist was rejected. 5. On the basis of complaint of de facto complainant, police undertook investigation and ultimately submitted chargesheet under Sections 419/420/376/311 IPC against the revisionist/accused. The statement of PW 1 was recorded together with other witnesses being relied upon by the prosecution during the course of investigation. Accordingly the petition dated 25.07.2018 filed by the revisionist was rejected. 5. On the basis of complaint of de facto complainant, police undertook investigation and ultimately submitted chargesheet under Sections 419/420/376/311 IPC against the revisionist/accused. The statement of PW 1 was recorded together with other witnesses being relied upon by the prosecution during the course of investigation. The statement of complainant/victim /prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. 6. Form the petition praying for further cross-examination of PW 1, it appears that the revisionst/accused sought for further cross-examination of PW 1 on the ground that some material questions transpiring strong animosity between the parties, because of pendency of several criminal cases between them, as evident from para 4, and some omissions and contradictions, revealed from para 3, inadvertently could not be put to PW 1 during her cross-examination causing serious prejudice to defence, which was attempted to be corrected under the behest of order under Section 311 Cr. P.C by recalling PW 1 for her further cross-examination. 7. Indubitably PW 1 was subjected to cross-examination thrice, and there was cross-examination at length, which according to defence was not up to the desired extent, for there had been no effective cross- examination covering all points necessarily being relied upon by the prosecution. 8. It is trite law that the facts stated, if not controverted, relating to a particular issue, would amount to an admission on the part of the defence in the absence of cross-examine to a witness, within precincts of law. Allowing effective cross-examination is the mandate of Constitution in order to establish satisfactory defence of the accused in a criminal trial conducted by the Court. It is not desirable that a prosecution case must go undefended on particular issue. Crucial point therefore, to be looked into is whether accused was favoured with all possible opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness (PW1) to the full extent, according to the requirement of a particular case, so as to ensure best possible effective defence in a trial conducted by the Court or not. Absence of effective cross-examination for the purpose of establishing defence may curtail personal right/freedom of an accused facing trial. Effective cross-examination is different from unnecessary, harassive and irrelevant cross-examination having no bearing on a particular case. Absence of effective cross-examination for the purpose of establishing defence may curtail personal right/freedom of an accused facing trial. Effective cross-examination is different from unnecessary, harassive and irrelevant cross-examination having no bearing on a particular case. The trial judge has to be very cautious in extending such opportunity of causing effective cross-examination to a witness with necessary circumspection. 9. Learned advocate for the revisionist relied upon a decision delivered in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 461 wherein and whereunder important principles were decided which has to be necessarily adhered to by all the courts responsible for dispensation of justice in the country, while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr. P.C read with Section 138 of the Evidence Act. The paramount requirement being just decision, the essentiality of the requirement of a person, sought to be recalled in order to enable the defence for further cross-examination, has to be ascertained. True it is that defence was provided with three(3) opportunities to conclude cross-examination of PW 1, but despite being favoured with several opportunities the same could not be effectively utilised within permissible precincts of law in an endeavour to establish and/or put up effective defence for the revisionist/accused. 10. It would be profitable here to refer some of the principles, as propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav (supra) for our present purpose, mentioned in paras 17.10 and 17.11, as hereunder. 17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safeguard, while exercising the discretion. The court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. 17.11. The court should be conscious of the position that after all the trail is basically for the prisoners and the court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results." 11. Upon applying such principles, mentioned hereinabove, the Court is of the view that it is expedient and necessary to permit the revisionist/accused to cross-examine the prosecution witness (PW 1) only on the limited aspect, as conspicuously mentioned in petition, filed by revisionist/accused dated 25.07.2018, contained in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the said petition, and not beyond that. Such prayer for further cross-examination would necessarily facilitate court in arriving at just decision of this case, irrespective of the fact that such PW 1 was cross-examined at length for as many as on three (3) occasions, and even after conclusion of her evidence. 12. The revisional application succeeds. 13. The impugned Order No. 24 dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Sealdah in connection with ST No. 4(3)16/(CIS-74/15) rejecting the application of the revisionist petitioner dated 25.07.2018 praying for further cross-examination of PW1 is set aside. 14. Learned Trial Judge is directed to summon PW 1 in order to enable defence to cross-examine her further to the extent necessary for addressing the points, as contained in paras 2,3 and 4 of the petition filed by the revisionist dated 25.07.2018, and not beyond that. 15. Learned Trial Judge is further directed to fix up a date while summoning PW 1 for further cross-examination to the extent as mentioned hereinabove. 16. It is expected that the learned defence counsel engaged for further cross-examination of PW 1 would corporate with the learned Trial Judge, while resuming further cross-examination in the light of the direction, as contained in hereinabove, and would not venture to waste the valuable time of Court, by putting unnecessary questions, not pertaining to the text. 17. With this observation and direction, the revisional application stands disposed of. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with the all necessary formalities.