(1.) The matter is listed for hearing on admission. With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is heard finally.
(2.) The revision has been preferred against the order dated 25.9.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur at Ramanujganj in Sessions Trial No.9 of 2018, whereby the Learned Special Judge has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the Applicant/accused seeking adjournment of the case and has closed opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/accused submits that on 16.7.2018, prosecutrix Priyanka (PW1) and her mother Neelamdevi (PW2) were present before the Trial Court and their examination-in-chief were recorded. Since Shri R.K. Patel, Counsel appearing for the Applicant/accused before the Trial Court was not present in the Court on that date, both the aforesaid witnesses could not be cross-examined by the Applicant/accused himself. Therefore, an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed on behalf of the Applicant, which was allowed vide order dated 21.8.2018 and the case was fixed for 25.9.2018 for recording cross-examination of the said two witnesses. He further submits that on 25.9.2018 also, Shri R.K. Patel, Counsel appearing for the Applicant/accused was not present in the Trial Court for some unavoidable reason. Therefore, a junior counsel submitted an application on behalf of the Applicant/accused for adjournment of the case, but the Special Judge has rejected the prayer for adjournment and has also closed opportunity of cross-examination of the said two witnesses. He further submits that both the witnesses are the prosecutrix and her mother, they have never been cross-examined on behalf of the Applicant/accused, nature of the offence in question is serious and, therefore, one opportunity should be afforded to the Applicant/accused to cross-examine the said two witnesses.