IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 1042 of 2011 1. Sita Ram 2. Raj Pal 3. Biram All R /o Bishmber 4. Vicky S/o Modan R/o Village Ismiyalpur P.S.Kotwali Laksar District Hardwar ………………..Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary of Home Secretariat of Dehradun. 2. Kaliram S/o Mangu Singh R/o Village Ismiyalpur P.S. Laksar District Hardwar ………….........Respondents Shri Mohd. Umar, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of 2 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 11.10.2010, passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardwar in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2010, state vs. Sitaram and others, relating to offences punishable under section 302, 364 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Laksar, District Hardwar, whereby said court has rejected the application for adjournment moved by the accused (present petitioners). (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this court to the fact that the Sessions Trial is of the year 2010 which was committed only on 12.03.2010. It is further pointed out that examination of PW1 Kaliram was recorded on 16.09.2011. On the same day the application for adjournment was rejected by the trial court, and the petitioners are deprived from cross examining the witness. (4) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the state, and after going through the impugned order, this court finds that though it is a discretion of the trial court to allow or reject the application for adjournment moved under section 309 of Cr.P.C., but in the present case, the trial judge appears to have gone with haste in not allowing even a single adjournment. 3 (5) Therefore, in the interest of justice the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed, and the order dated 11.10.2010 and the order dated 16.09.2011 (to the extent the cross examination is closed), are set aside. The next date fixed in the case is 05.12.2011. The trial court is directed to summon PW1 Kaliram for said date and opportunity be given to the counsel for the petitioners to cross examine him. No further adjournment shall be allowed. In case, the counsel for the petitioner fails to cross examine PW1 Kaliram even on 05.12.2011, the cross examination of said witness shall stand closed. Let the copy of this order sent by the Registry immediately to the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.16.11.2011 N.P