- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 1-3-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/f. T. C. IV, Kanpur Nagar in S. T. No. 230 of 2002 whereby the application for recalling P. W. 4 for the purpose of the cross- examination has been rejected. From the perusal of record, it appears that the applicant is accused in S. T. No. 230 of 2002 under Section 18/20 N. D. P. S. Act pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/f. T. C. IV Kanpur Nagar. The applicant could not appear before the Court concerned on 1-3-2007. The application to exempt his personal attendance was moved through his Counsel, the same was allowed by the trial Court on 1-3-2007 but on the same day, the examination-in-chief of P. W. 4 was recorded in absence of the applicant and his Counsel was engaged in some other Court thereafter, the cross-examination of P. W. 4 was closed. The application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. was moved by the applicant with a prayer that P. W. 4 may be summoned for cross-examination but the same was rejected by the trial Court on 25-6-2007 on the ground that other witnesses were examined in the Court and no such application was moved prior 25-6-2007. The case was fixed for defence evidence and reasons shown in the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. were not proper to summon P. W. 4 for cross-examination. But in the present case, examination-in-chief of P. W. 4 was recorded on 1-3-2007, learned Counsel for the applicant could not appear in the Court concerned for the purpose of cross-examination of P. W. 4 because he was engaged in some other Court whereas the application for personal exemption made by the applicant was allowed by the trial Court itself on the same day, in his absence the examination-in-chief of P. W. 4 was recorded and in his absence the order closing the cross-examination was passed. There was no material to show that the applicant or his Counsel was trying to linger on the proceedings by adopting dilatory tactics, in such a situation, it was not proper for the trial Court to close the cross-examination of P. W. 4 because it was the right of the accused to cross-examine the witness and to put his defence, the impugned order dated 1-3-2007 was passed in hurry. It is not a proper order and to meet the ends of natural justice and to protect the right of the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the P. W. 4 may be provided to the applicant. The learned trial Court has again committed an error by rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. by refusing to afford an opportunity to the applicant to cross- examine P. W. 4. This order dated 25-6-2007 is also an improper order, which requires interference by this Court, therefore, the impugned order dated 25-6-2007 is hereby set aside. However, considering the fact that the applicant has not moved an application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. not immediately after the order dated 1-3-2007 by which cross-examination of P. W. 4 was closed, the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. was moved after expiry of three and a half months by that time the evidence of other witnesses was also adduced, for which the applicant is liable to pay the cost. Therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit Rs. 1,000/- before the Court concerned within 15 days from today. In case, such a cost is deposited, the opportunity of cross-examination of P. W. 4 shall be afforded to the applicant.
(3.) WITH this direction this application is finally disposed of. Application disposed of. .;