IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17264 of 2010 RAM BARAN ROY, SON OF BHOLA ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHADINAGAR (GOPALPUR), P.S. AMARPUR, DISTT. BANKA …. PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.10.2010 The petitioner, who is one of the accused persons in S.T.No.723 of 2002 (T.R.No.294 of 2010) pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Banka, is aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2010, by which the prayer for recall of P.Ws.1 to 5 has been disallowed by the court below. The case has a chequered history inasmuch as on 15.11.2006 the trial court had closed the prosecution case and had also examined the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the prosecution filed an application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. for examination of witnesses, which was allowed by the trial court. As against this, the petitioner and others moved the Hon’ble High Court vide Cr.Misc.No.8172 of 2007 which was finally disposed of on 28.8.2007. Before the case could be taken up for first hearing P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined by the trial court but the defence counsel refused to cross-examine them since they had moved the higher court. As a result, the trial court discharged those witnesses. After Cr.Misc.No.8172 of 2007 was disposed of on 28.8.2007 with a direction to conclude the trial within 15 days P.Ws.6 to 9 were examined and cross-examined and a 2 cost was imposed on the petitioner for recall of P.Ws.1 to 5. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the imposition of cost for recall of the witnesses he moved the Hon’ble court again which was permitted to be withdrawn at a later stage. The accused persons are finally ready to even pay cost for recall of P.Ws.1 to 5. The Counsel submits that since the criminal court is not required to fault with either of the parties but is to deliver justice to both the parties, in my view one opportunity should be given to the petitioner in the facts of the case. In view of such, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to recall P.Ws.1 to 5 and examine them on day-to-day basis and under no circumstances even one day’s adjournment be granted to the petitioner for cross-examination. The petitioner is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- for each witness as cost for having delayed the trial to satisfy his ego. This order is being passed on the submission that the case is still pending and is in argument stage. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through fax at the cost of the petitioner. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )