Inherent powers cannot bypass a barred second revision, and witness recall needs genuine necessity after repeated defaults.

Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar on a second revision by relabelling a challenge already rejected in revision, and the petition was therefore not maintainable. Recall of a complainant for cross-examination at the stage of final arguments, after repeated opportunities over several years and closure of defence evidence, is discretionary and requires genuine necessity for a just decision; vague excuses did not justify reopening the evidence. The material indicated repeated default and delay rather than any miscarriage of justice, so the refusal to recall was upheld and the trial and revisional orders remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition under the inherent jurisdiction was maintainable after dismissal of the revision, or whether it amounted to a barred second revision. (ii) Whether recall of the complainant for cross-examination was warranted at the stage of final arguments after repeated opportunities had already been afforded and the defence evidence stood closed.

Issue (i): Whether the petition under the inherent jurisdiction was maintainable after dismissal of the revision, or whether it amounted to a barred second revision.

Analysis: The petition was filed after the petitioners had already challenged the recall-rejection order before the revisional court, which declined interference and also ruled on merits. The inherent jurisdiction could not be used to circumvent the statutory embargo against a second revision. A litigant cannot repackage the same challenge under a different label to bypass the bar on successive revision.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable and was barred as a second revision in substance.

Issue (ii): Whether recall of the complainant for cross-examination was warranted at the stage of final arguments after repeated opportunities had already been afforded and the defence evidence stood closed.

Analysis: The record showed that permission for cross-examination had been granted long back, multiple opportunities were provided over several years, and the accused still failed to complete cross-examination. Recall of a witness at the fag end is discretionary and must be justified by real necessity for a just decision. Vague assertions, including reliance on the alleged condition of previous counsel, did not establish such necessity. The circumstances indicated repeated default and a dilatory approach rather than any miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: Recall of the complainant was not warranted and no ground existed to reopen the closed evidentiary stage.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of recall could not be entertained, and the trial court and revisional court orders were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers cannot be invoked to defeat the statutory bar against a second revision, and recall of a witness after repeated opportunities and closure of evidence is not to be granted unless it is genuinely essential for a just decision.

---