1 S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.512/2008 (Kuldeep Gurnout Vs U.O.I.) DATE OF ORDER : 16/7/2008 HON'BLE MR.BHANWAROO KHAN, J. Mr. S.D. Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Panney Singh, PP for CBI. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directing against the order dated 23.2.2008 and 10.3.2008 wherein the trial court did not find all pages of statement of Jitendra Kumar recorded during the trial and one page was found missing from the file. Reconstruction of the file was not found to be feasible, as the missing page was not available with either of the party. Jitendra Kumar was examined again, but the learned counsel for the accused failed to cross-examine. The opportunity for cross-examining should have been given by the trial court but the order dated 10.3.2008 speaks that learned counsel himself refused to cross- examine and pleaded that since the Senior Counsel is not present, cross-examination would be conducted by the Senior Counsel but the learned trial court without giving any opportunity closed the cross-examination. The statement of witness 2 was recorded again in the presence of the accused. The cross-examination of the said witness is a right which should have been provided. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the witness will be kept ready on 25.7.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to cross-examine if he wants to avail the opportunity of the same. The trial court is directed to give opportunity of cross-examination to the learned counsel for the accused on 25.7.2008, if the learned counsel failed to cross-examine the witness, no further opportunity would be provided. Other order dated 23.2.2008 in which an application on behalf of the petitioner was submitted before the trial court under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to produce Omprakash Ujjawal, Addl. S.P. The defence of the accused was closed by the counsel of the accused himself after examining six defence witnesses. It is not a right of the accused to ask the prosecution to produce every prosecution witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. If at all learned counsel wants to produce any prosecution witness who was not produced on behalf of the prosecution, it is his right to get him examined as defence witness and 3 the accused cannot ask prosecution to produce the witness left out by the prosecutrix. Hence, the application under Sec. 311Cr.P.C. submitted by the accused-petitioner is not maintainable at this stage. Learned trial court while rejecting the same has not committed illegality, no interference in order dated 23.2.2008 is warranted. With the above observations and directions of Court, the misc. petition stands disposed of. (BHANWAROO KHAN)J. Rm/