HARBANS LAL,J. - (1.) THE instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 4.4.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer camp Beawar in Sessions Case No. 9/2004 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination.
(2.) THE brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner is facing trial on charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC before the learned court below. He moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 4.4.2005 before the learned trial court stating therein that two eye-witnesses namely Shanker PW6 and Basanta PW7 could not be cross examined on the dates fixed for their cross examination because the learned counsel who was conducting the trial on his behalf was suffering from acute diarrhea and could not appear in Court. The said application was declined by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition. His learned counsel has contended that the learned trial court did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons for the absence of his learned counsel. The petitioner is in judicial custody and is facing trial for a serious offence under Section 302 IPC. The principles of natural justice require that the accused should be afforded proper opportunity of cross-examination of the main eye-witness. In this regard, he has referred to the cases of Indal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 WLC (Raj.) UC 86 and Lalit Bagrecha v. State of Rajasthan, 2003(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 265 : 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 81.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has tried to support the order of the learned Court below. He has submitted that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and the impugned order is well reasoned which calls for no interference by this Court.;