IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21788 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Sri Uday Narayan Singh, resident of Village Marpa Mohan, P.S.Phenhara, District East Champaran. Versus The State of Bihar . ----------- 02 11.07.2011 Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP for the State. This petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 04.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No.779/2004 arising out of Phenhara P.S.Case No.20/2001, inter alia, rejecting the petitioner’s application for recall of witnesses, namely, the Investigating Officer and the Doctor for cross examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case for interference by this Court in view of the manifest injustice against the petitioner by reason of denial of proper opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses. He further invites attention to his petition before the F.T.C. wherein he made specific averments that proper cross examination could not be made by him by reason that the original FIR not being on records, and so also that the statement of the victim had been taken note of in the case. He submits that he had accordingly requested that the cross examination be permitted to be continued after the documents are made available. In view of the crucial nature of the documents upon 2 which the entire case is founded being not available, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner could not be faulted for making the request for being allowed to cross examine the I.O. and the Doctor after the documents were placed on record. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has wrongly been prejudiced by reason of the impugned order which has been passed without affording adequate opportunity for cross examination. It is difficult to uphold the observation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the objection taken by the petitioner was merely a delaying tactic resorted to for purposes of lingering the case. Learned counsel for the State appears and seeks to support the impugned order, but however, does not dispute the fact that the aforesaid documents were indeed not on the record. In the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 4.6.2011 is hereby quashed with a direction that the two witnesses namely, the Investigating Officer and the Doctor be recalled and the petitioner be permitted reasonable opportunity for cross examination of the said two witnesses after ensuring that the original FIR and the victim’s statement as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 of the instant petition are on record. The petition is accordingly disposed of. psc (Vikash Jain, J.)