- (1.) C. A. Rahim, J. Heard learned Coun sel and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 26-6-1997 passed by the learned Special Judge (E. G. Act), Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 1994 under Sec tions 307/323/504, I. P. C. by that judgment he rejected the application of the revisionist, accusation in that trial, filed on 26-6-1997. On behalf of the accused the said applica tion was filed for recalling P. W. 2 for further cross- examination. The Teamed Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that the said application was filed to delay the proceedings. Perused the copy of the application filed today. It has been argued that the learned Judge has rejected the application without showing proper reason and the reason shown, in fact, is of no substance. Since no delay would be caused by allowing cross examination of one witness the grounds shown in the application dated 26-6-1997 appears to be relevant and if by some mis take the said question was not put to P. W. 2 the accused will be prejudiced in case it is not allowed to put such question even if the period of cross-examination is over. I feel in the ends of justice that he should get a chance to cross-examine the P. W. 2 only on the point raised in the cross-petition ex amination. Learned Counsel has agreed that no further point will be taken in cross- examining P. W. 2 besides the matter men tioned in the application dated 26-6-1997. Only for this limited purpose revision will succeed.
(3.) THE revision is, therefore, allowed. THE order dated 26-6-1997 is hereby set aside. THE learned Trial Judge shall allow the accused-revisionist to cross-examine P. W. 2 only on the point mentioned in his application dated 26-6-1997. THE learned Judge shall fixed up a date by issuing sum mon to the P. W. 2. It should be completed within a period of one month after the receipt of the copy of this order. No ad journment on any ground will be allowed to the accused-revisionist. THEre should be one set of cross examination as learned Counsel submits that one lawyer is repre senting all the revisionist in the trial court. With the above observations, this revision is disposed of.;