RAVINDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) THIS application has been filed by the applicants Mahaveer and Ram Naresh with a prayer to quash the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC -4, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 49 of 2005 whereby the learned Trial Court has closed the statement of PW 9 by directing that his examination -in -chief shall not been read against those accused persons who have not cross -examined him. The brief facts of this case are that an FIR has been lodged by Smt. Manorma Devi on 15.10.2001 in respect of the incident which had occurred on 15.10.2001 at about 5.00 p.m. at police station Badshahpur, district Jaunpur in case crime No. 206 of 2001 under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. The FIR was lodged against the applicants and four other co -accused persons, after investigation, the charge -sheet was submitted on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the accused persons to face the trial. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, the same is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC -4, Jaunpur vide S.T. No. 49 of 2005, at the stage of the trial, the statement of the I.O. of this case has been recorded as PW 9 but he could not be cross -examined by the applicants. Thereafter, an application for summoning the PW9 was filed by the applicants, the same was allowed -at the cost, the cost of Rs. 1000/ - has also been deposited by the applicants but subsequently, the evidence of PW 9 has been closed on the ground that it was informed by the pairokar of the prosecution side that PW 9 has been retired from the service and he had gone somewhere else and it was ordered by trial Court on 26.2.2009 that the evidence of P.W. 9 shall not be read against those accused who have not examined him.
(3.) BEING aggrieved from the order dated 26.2.2009, the applicants have filed the present application with a prayer to quash the order dated 26.2.2009 and the opportunity of cross -examining to PW 9 may be afforded to the applicants. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case, the examination -in -chief of the PW 9 has been recorded, he has been cross -examined also by co -accused persons but he has not been cross -examined by the applicants. For cross -examining the PW 9, the application was moved by the applicants, same was allowed by the trial Court at the cost of Rs. 1000/ -, the amount of the cost has been deposited by the applicants, thereafter on a flimsy ground the evidence of the PW 9 has been closed and the applicants have been denied not to cross -examine PW 9 only on the ground that PW 9 has been retired from service and he has gone somewhere else, in case the PW 9 is not cross -examined by the applicants, they shall suffer irreparable loss and the evidence of the PW 9 has been illegally closed by the trial Court.;