S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. No notice is issued to private respon­dent in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondent to apply for varia­tion or modification of this order, if he feels so aggrieved. This revision is directed against the or­der dated 21.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 1, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 589 of 2003, State v. Satnam and others, under sections 302 and 307 IPC, whereby the application 53-B for recalling the order dated 9.4.2010 closing the opportunity of cross-examination of PW-2- Kashmir Singh was rejected.
(2.) THE facts are that PW-2 Kashmir Singh was cross-examined partly on 24.11.2006. Subsequently, he did not-appear for cross-examination and went abroad and thereafter, Kashmir Singh ap­peared in the Court on 19.4.2010. Learned Counsel for the revisionists made a statement before the Court that he would cross-examine the witness after lunch. When the case was taken up after lunch, the Counsel for the accused did not turn up to 2.20 p.m. and thereafter, the op­portunity for cross-examination was closed. The application 53-B for recalling the order dated 19.4.2010 was rejected, hence this revision. Learned Counsel for the revision­ists submitted that the accused persons cannot be held responsible for the fact that the witness appeared after four years for cross-examination. On the date on which PW-2 appeared for cross-examination, learned Counsel for the defence was busy in some other Court and unfortunately, he could not reach the Trial Court by 2.20 p.m. and for this reason, the opportunity for cross examination of PW.-2 should not have been closed by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that when the application for recall of PW-2 for fur­ther cross examination was filed, the same should not have been rejected by the trial judge. In a case under section 302 IPC, the rights of the accused should not have been fore- closed by passing such a harsh order. Learned AGA supported the impugned order.
(3.) ON the date on which PW-2 ap­peared for cross-examination, the Counsel for accused could not appear in the Court and therefore, opportunity of cross-examination was closed by the Trial Court. When the application for recalling PW-2 for cross-examination was moved, learned Trial Court should have recalled PW-2 for cross-examination and should not have closed opportunity of cross-examination on technical and frivolous grounds. Cross-examination is a valuable right given to the accused to elicit the truth and cannot be fore-closed for the fault of the Counsel. There is no need repeating that no one should be condemned unheard which may amount to grave miscarriage of justice.;