- (1.) BHANWAR Singh, J. Heard.
(2.) THE petitioner in his capacity as Manager of the State Bank of India had sanctioned a loan to the respondent No. 2, Ram Krishna Prasad. Sri Ram Krishna Prasad failed to discharge his liability for the payment of the said loan amount, as a result of which recovery proceedings were initiated against him. He filed a writ petition before this Court in which he was granted relief in regard to making repayment of entire loan amount by way of instalments. However, he could not comply with the directions of the Court as a result of which the tractor which was purchased by loan amount had been seized and auctioned alongwith some of his agricultural holdings. Sri Ram Krishna Prasad filed a complaint against the petitioner with the allegations that he being in collusion with the village Pradhan and some other villagers prepared forged and fictitious documents and thereby committed offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I. P. C. During the course of trial, the complainant and two other witnesses were examined. THE petitioner's counsel could not cross-examine them for one reason or the other. THE petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. praying for opportunity of cross-examining the complainant and other witnesses. THE trial Court had granted petitioner's prayer and directed him to deposit Rs. 900 as compensatory costs. THE petitioner complied with it and deposited the amount of Rs. 900. However, in the meantime, the respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge. THE said revision was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Varanasi. After hearing the parties the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of July 3, 2002 thereby rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. and thus deprived him of his right to cross-examine the witnesses. A perusal of the impugned order of revision (Annexure No. 9) would reveal that the only ground on the basis of which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the trial Court's order dated 3-7- 2002 is that the petitioner was guilty of latches and also causing impediment in the proceedings of the trial which lingered on for a long time but such an order is against the interest of justice as it would take away a valuable legal right of an accused in dock. The fact remains that the petitioner levelled serious charges of forgery and manufacturing false documents and as such he was entitled to avail an opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses particularly the complainant, who had filed the complaint. The trial Court had rightly granted his application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. The Court of revision had without any cogent reason exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the discretion of the trial Court. Every accused has a right to cross-examine the witnesses being produced against him in support of serious allegations levelled in the complaint. The revisional Court has seriously prejudiced the petitioner's cause, as he is entitled to examine the witnesses as a matter of right. Considering all what is said above, I am of the decisive opinion that the revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the trial Court's order dated 3-7-2002. As a consequence, the revisional Court's judgment and order dated 28- 4-2003 are hereby quashed. The trial Court shall proceed according to its order dated 3-7-2002 by providing an opportunity to the petitioner of cross-examining the witnesses. In view of this aspect of the matter, this petition succeeds and the trial Court is commanded as directed above. Petition allowed. .;