(1.) Leave granted. The appellant is facing trial for offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 22.05.2015, he had moved an application for certain time to cross examine the prosecution witnesses which application was rejected by the Trial Court. Against that order, the appellant had approached the High Court. The High Court disposed of the petition of the appellant filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by giving an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the prosecution witnesses subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost which was to be deposited within 15 days. Order was passed on 30.11.2016 and, as such, the amount was to be deposited by 15.12.2016. The petitioner could not deposit the amount by 15.12.2016 but the appellant had deposited the said amount only on 24.12.2016, i.e., after a delay of 09 days. In these circumstances, the appellant moved an application for extention of time by 09 days. However, vide the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed this application only stating that there is no ground for extention of time since 15 days' time has already been given.
(2.) We consider that this order refusing to grant extention of time even by 09 days, more so when the petitioner had given plausible explanation in his application, is clearly erroneous and would cause miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as, the right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is a valuable right which is given to the petitioner who is accused of the aforesaid offence. This aspect was properly appreciated while passing order dated 30.11.2016 and that is the reason that opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was granted to the petitioner. It should not have been snatched or taken back by adopting such a technical attitude even when the order was complied with and the amount was deposited but there was a delay of 09 days in depositing the same.
(3.) We, thus, set aside the impunged order of the High Court and allow this appeal.