@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.@mdashIn a Sessions Trial (No. 290 of 1996) under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C., before II Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, the Trial Judge rejected the application of the accused-applicant for adjournment on the ground of his being busy in other cases. Thereafter, the Trial Judge examined the two prosecution witnesses, who could not be cross-examined and then closed the evidence. The counsel for the accused-applicant applied for recalling of the order of closure of evidence of the two witnesses since he was busy in other courts and could not come but the said application was rejected by the trial Judge.
2. That is how the accused-applicant has come to this Court u/s 482, Cr. P.C. seeking directions to the trial Judge for seeking the evidence and giving an opportunity for cross-examination of the two witnesses.
3. I have heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri R. D. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. It is true that the patience of the trial Judge was exhausted because of the absence of the lawyer for the accused-applicant and that is why he closed the evidence but it has also to be taken into account that the case is u/s 302, I.P.C. which can result even in a death sentence and the stakes are, therefore, high. A little latitude will not, therefore, be out of place.
5. This Court, therefore, feels inclined to give one more opportunity to the accused-applicant to ensure the presence of their counsel on the next date of hearing fixed by the trial Judge and the two prosecution witnesses who could not be cross-examined will be recalled and an opportunity for cross-examination will be provided. The counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking in this Court that the applicant''s counsel will remain present on next date of hearing and will not apply for adjournment and will also pay Rs. 200 as costs awarded by the Court in the case as also the expenses of recalling of the witnesses.
6. The costs and the expenses shall be paid immediately after the order has been received in the trial court so that there may be no delay in disposal of the case since there are already existing directions of the High Court for disposal of the case within 6 months. Ordered accordingly.
7. Petition allowed.
