RAVINDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case, the applicants have filed an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. mentioning therein specific points on which the cross -examination of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is essentially required for the just decision of the case. The same has been allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 15.12009 at the cost of Rs. 500/ -. The applicant has deposited the cost. Thereafter the first informant moved an objection that the applicants may be directed to supply the list of questions on the specific points, the same has been allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated 3.2.2009 whereas the specific questions have been already mentioned in the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. The applicants may not be permitted to cross -examine the PW 1 and PW 2 other than the questions mentioned in the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the application dated 12.1.2009 filed by the applicants under Section 311, Cr.P.C. has been allowed by learned trial Court on 15.1.2009. The application dated 12.1.2009 is containing the specific points on which the cross -examination of PW 1 and PW 2 is essentially required, after allowing such application the learned trial Court has passed impugned order dated 3.2.2009 by which the application filed by the prosecution side has been allowed and the applicants have been directed to furnish the list of the questions on specific point for the purpose of cross -examination of PW 1 and PW 2. After allowing the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C., it was not proper to direct the applicants to furnish fresh list of the questions on specific points because the questions require to be cross -examined were already mentioned in the application under Section 311, CrRC., which has been allowed. The trial Court has committed a manifest error in passing the order dated 3.2.2009, the same is illegal, therefore, it may be set aside.
(3.) IN reply to the above contentions, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 3.2.2009 directing the applicants to furnish the list of questions on specific point to ensure the cross -examination on those questions with PW1 and PW2. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 3.2.2009.;