((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.636 OF 2008 Suhas Dattatray Panchal & anr. Applicants versus The State Respondent Sunil S. Vichare for applicants. S.S.Pednekar, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th May 2009 PC : 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service for the respondent. The applicants are being tried for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After four prosecution witnesses were examined, the applicants changed their advocate. After a new advocate was appointed by the applicants, the said advocate realised that the prosecution witness nos.2 and 3 have not been properly cross examined. Therefore, an application was made by the applicants under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking recall of the said two witnesses for further cross examination. The said application has been ((-2-)) rejected by the impugned order dated 06th October 2008. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invited my attention to the cross examination of the said witnesses and other material on record. He submitted that only because the earlier advocate inadvertently did not ask certain questions in the cross examination, the applicants should not be allowed to suffer. He submitted that the only on the ground of delay the application could not have been rejected. 3. The learned APP supported the impugned judgement and order by pointing out that the trial is being delayed though the case is of the year 1993. When a query was made whether the said two witnesses are available, on instructions of the concerned officer, the learned APp states that the said witnesses are very much available. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The applicants are charged with the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that the case is of the ((-3-)) year 1993 and the charge has been framed more than five years back. It appears that PW-2 and PW-3 were cross examined by the earlier advocate appointed by the applicants. However, the contention of the applicants is that certain important questions were inadvertently remained to be put to the said witnesses in the cross examination. I have perused the cross examination of the said witnesses made by the advocate for the applicants. Considering the controversy involved, I am of the view that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the applicants to further cross examine the said witnesses. As the case is very old, the applicants will have to cross examine the said witnesses as and when the prosecution keeps the said witnesses present. It is made clear that the applicants will not be entitled to seek any adjournment on any ground for cross examining the said witnesses. The learned APP stated that the next date fixed for trial is 30th May 2009. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) The impugned judgement and order is quashed and set aside and the application at Exhibit-58 ((-4-)) in Sessions Case No.826 of 1993 is allowed; (b) PW-2 Salima Sheikh and PW-3 Mohammed Shaikh are recalled for further cross examination by the applicants; (c) The prosecution will keep the said witnesses present on 30th May 2009; (d) As and when the said witnesses appear, the applicants and/or their advocate will have to cross examine the said witnesses; (e) The applicants will not be entitled to seek any adjournment for cross examining the said witnesses; (f) Since the case is of the year 1993, hearing of the case is expedited and trial should be concluded as expeditiously as possible; (g) Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)