DATTU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.J. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

(2.) Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondent. By consent, heard finally forthwith.

(3.) The petitioners are the accused in Sessions Case no. 174/2012 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge at Beed. The trial of the said case is in progress. Witness summonses have been issued and served upon a number of witnesses. In the course of trial, the first informant Gangadhar (PW3) was examined as a witness. After his examinationinchief was over, the accused persons made an application (Exhibit 73) and prayed that the cross examination of the said witness be deferred till the evidence of the other witnesses would be completed. Accused stated in the said application that, otherwise they were likely to be prejudiced in their defence and the purpose of cross examination was likely to be defeated, unless their prayer was granted.