Uma Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P.and another

Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. Manoj Sahu, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge E.C. Act, Faizabad in Criminal Case No. 1/05, whereby the petitioner''s application for providing him opportunity to cross examine P.W.3 has been rejected on the ground that sufficient opportunity for crossexamination has been availed by the defence Counsel.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner moved an application dated 30.1.2008 for adjournment on behalf of his Counsel before the Trial Court for providing him opportunity to crossexamine the prosecution witness No. 3 on the ground that his Counsel is out of station, but the Trial Court on the same date rejected the said application on the ground that the prosecution side was asked to crossexamine him but since he failed to crossexamine him, his evidence was closed on the same very date and the matter was posted for another date for remaining evidence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the petitioner should have been given opportunity to crossexamine P.W. 3 but it has not been done so. In the interest of justice, I hereby provide that the Court below shall provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to crossexamine P.W. 3 and the petitioner without taking any further adjournment shall avail the said opportunity on the date fixed by the Court below. The order dated 3.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge E.C. Act, Faizabad in Criminal Case No. 1/05 is hereby set aside.

The petition is allowed.