IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.273 of 2009 GUDDU SINGH @ GOPAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 16.07.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the State. During hearing of the prayer for bail of the appellant, it has transpired that the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 4 did not take place as the lawyer for the appellant was not present. Our attention has been invited to the recitals in the deposition of PW 1 and the order of discharge contained therein read in conjunction with the order-sheet of the proceedings of the court below dated 15.2.2007. The witnesses appear to have been discharged on a single date in absence of the defence Counsel without even a reasonable opportunity for the Counsel to be present on another date to cross-examine or the Court arranging another Counsel to enable the defence to cross-examine. We are satisfied that the proceedings were not only irregular but prejudice has been caused to the appellant. We, therefore, consider it a fit case to set aside the conviction and sentence and remand the matter back to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, I, Barh to proceed afresh in Sessions Trial No. 1321 of 2005 from the stage of completion of examination in chief of PWs 1 to 4 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law to decide the case afresh. We also deem it proper to observe that if necessary the trial court shall discharge its obligation under section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that the appellant is not prejudiced by absence of his Advocate, engaged by him, for any reason. This Court further directs the trial court to proceed afresh in the aforesaid manner and try the case in accordance with law expeditiously without giving unnecessary adjournment to either party. Let the lower court records be transmitted to the court below for completion of the trial in the manner as directed above. The appeal is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)