BADLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to AG, Haryana. On the asking of the Court Mr. Sultan Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice.

(2.) THE challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated October 9, 1999 vide which the trial Court after closing the prosecution evidence had also declined the request made by the defence counsel for cross-examining the witnesses whose examination-in-chief was recorded but cross-examination was deferred.

(3.) THE impugned order suggests that certain adjournments were given to the defence counsel for cross-examination of the witnesses but for some reason or the other, the witnesses could not be croos-examined. It is well settled that on account of mistake of the defence counsel, the party should not be made to suffer. The valuable right has already accrued to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and in this way the said right cannot be taken away particularly when the prejudice is caused to the accused by not allowing them to conduct the cross-examination of the witnesses.