SITA RAM CHAJJU RAM Vs. TIMCO STEEL COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that his right of defence has been seriously prejudiced by rejection of his application under Sec. 145(2) of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has supported the impugned order on the ground that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the order. He has submitted that the application rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order in fact was the second application under Sec. 145(2) of the Act filed on behalf of the accused/petitioner. In the first instance, learned trial Court had allowed the accused to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses. Thereafter, an application under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused/petitioner with a prayer to further cross-examine the complainant/respondent. His prayer was rejected. Lastly, the accused came up with another application under Sec. 145(2) of the Act.