- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. In a Sessions Trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, two prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the Counsel for the accused-applicants. Thereafter, on the next date, an application was moved from the side of the accused to the effect that the two prosecution witnesses P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 be recalled for further cross-examination because they were cross-examined by a junior Counsel and a Senior Counsel has now been engaged.
(2.) THE Trial Court rejected the application and that is what brings the accused to this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. I have heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri R. K. Maurya, Additional Government Advocate for the State. The Trial Judge has written a very good and comprehensive order. It has been mentioned in his order that the suggestion from the side of the complainant is that this is a subterfuge to make the witnesses reverse their statement because it is not unlikely that they may have been won over and there is likelihood that arrangements have been made for the witnesses to turn hostile in their subsequent cross-examination.
(3.) THE Trial Court further noted in its order that 9 pages cross-examination of P. W. 1 and 5 pages cross- examination of P. W. 2 was conducted by the Counsel on the date when P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 were examined. THE Trial Court also referred to the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2004 (2) JIC 173 and 973 (SC) : 2004 (49) A. C. C. 239, where it was emphasized that the rights of the victim are also as important as those of the accused and also that the Judge is not supposed to be an idle spectator but an active participant in the proceedings. That shows that the Trial Judge was conscious of his responsibility in a Sessions Trial and if there had been any manifest lacuna in cross- examination, he was likely to have intervened. It is also to be noticed that it was not specified in the application given from the side of the accused, about which matter further cross-examination was necessary and which points were left untouched by the pervious Counsel. There is only a general and vague statement that the previous cross-examination was not conducted in a satisfactory manner. This was an out of the way special request and the Counsel should have explained as to what was the point on which further cross-examination was required and should have satisfied the Court about the same.;