Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. Mr. Bibhash Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the informant in a case, which was being tried before the court below. He examined himself whereby his examination -in -chief was recorded and then he was partly cross -examined by the defence. The case was adjourned to other day. Thereafter he did not appear for number of dates for being cross -examined, as a result of which, the case of the prosecution was closed and the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner/informant praying therein to allow him to be cross -examined by the defence as on account of being not cross -examined fully, his evidence is likely to be expunged. Taking into account that aspect of the matter, that application, filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C., was allowed. However, the accused did prefer a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Ranchi. The revision application was allowed on the ground that the informant/petitioner though had been appearing in other cases, but did not appear in the case purposely to cause inconvenience to the other side and, thereby, the order passed by the trial court was set aside. Being aggrieved by that order, this application has been filed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that if the order passed by the revisional court is allowed to remain intact, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as in the event of the petitioner being not cross -examined by the accused persons, his evidence would be expunged and that revision, preferred by the accused persons was itself not maintainable when the application, filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. had been allowed by the trial court after being satisfied that the cross -examination of the petitioner would be essential for just decision of the case. However, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that the revisional court has rightly set aside the order passed by the trial court as the petitioner had been pursuing his other cases but in the case giving rise to this application, he did not appears not only for one date but continuously for 16 dates and, hence, this application is fit to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it does appear that the trial court did allow the prayer after taking into account the fact that cross -examination of the petitioner would be necessary for the ends of justice, whereas the learned revisional court set aside the order by holding on the fact of the case that inconvenience has been caused to the other side, which cannot be a valid ground for setting aside the order passed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. In that situation, the order passed by the revisional court is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear on the next date fixed and be allowed to be cross -examined subject to payment of Rs. 500/ - (five hundred). With these observations, this application stands disposed of. ;