MANPHOOL RAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned P.P. is directed to accept the notice which he accepts.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties at admission stage.

(3.) The petitioners were facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar. Prosecution examined Nandram, Ramkumar, Modram and Gogadevi on 20.5.97. On that date senior counsel Shri Sriram, Advocate was out of station and, therefore, the accused petitioners sought adjournment so that the witnesses may be cross examined on next date but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not allow the prayer. Thereafter the accused petitioners submitted application under Sec. 311 Code Criminal Procedure which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by impugned order dated 9.6.97. This misc. petition has been directed against the order dated 9.6.97. Learned counsel for the petitioners citing Hazari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 RCC 433 , submitted that the object of cross-examination is to impeach the credibility and the general value of the evidence given by the witnesses and that the right to cross-examine is one of the valuable rights of the accused in order to elicit the truth from the witnesses. He submitted that the petitioners are ready to bear the expenses to re summon the witnesses. Learned PR frankly concedes.