36. Further cross examination - only on specified question

In Criminal Misc. Application no. 4214 of 2007
Khalid Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and another an application was moved by new counsel for recalling P.W.1 Khalid Ahmad Khan for further cross examination on the ground that on the date when the statement of Khalid Ahmad Khan was recorded, some other counsel had cross examined Khalid Ahmad and he has now been engaged by Naushad as his counsel, and after perusal of the statement of Khalid Ahmad Khan he was of the view that it was necessary to put some questions to Khalid Ahmad Khan and so Khalid Ahmad Khan should be recalled for cross examination. This application was allowed by the learned Judge. Aggrieved with that order P.W.1 Khalid Ahmad Khan filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

Quashing the order of sessions Judge, the High Court held that “The application for further cross examination of the applicant was moved by his new counsel on 21.2.2007 in which he stated that some important questions could not be asked from P.W.1 and so he ( P.W. 1 ) should be recalled for further cross examination. I am of the view that when the accused had sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witness and they had availed that opportunity the witness could not be recalled for further cross examination. At the most the learned counsel for the accused, if he was of the view that certain important questions had not been put to P.W.1 during the course of cross examination, could have sought permission from the court to put those questions to the witness after specifying those questions in his application, but he did not do so. Under these circumstances, the prayer made by him for further cross examination of the witness who had already been sufficiently cross examined was not maintainable and the learned trial Court has legally erred by allowing that application.”

In Criminal Misc. Application No. 11728 of 2007
Awinesh Vs. State of U..P. and another, application for further cross examination was rejected by the trial court. The first question specified in the application was that he has to put some questions regarding the site plan and the second question is that he has to ask some questions regarding Rifle of the deceased which was allegedly carried by the informant with him. Dismissing the application under s 482 CrPC, the High Court held that both these questions are vague. When a witness has been examined and cross examined, then if any question could not be put to him during the course of cross examination , the only remedy open under law is to clearly specify the question which is to be put and seek permission of the court concerned for putting that question to the witness, and if the court is of the view that the question is relevant and had not been put at the previous stage in the course of cross examination, he may permit the party to ask the question. In the present case the questions to be asked have not been specified and there is a vague prayer that some questions are to be put in regard to the site plan and the Rifle . Such an application was rightly rejected by the learned Special Judge .
However, the court directed that if the applicant makes a fresh application clearly specifying the actual questions in verbatim which are to be put to the witness , then that application may be considered by the trial court, and if the court is of the view that those questions had not been put to the witness earlier and that they are relevant for just decision of the case, suitable orders may be passed on that application .