1 4984.11 Cri.Appln. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4984 OF 2011 Ranchhod S/o Godha Baviskar & Others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtara RESPONDENT ..... Shri B.R. Warama, Advocate for the applicants Shri N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent / State ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 21 st November, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused application annexures therewith. 2. Rejection of the application for further cross- examination of the complainant-PW1- Bhagwat Baviskar in the R.C.C. No. 80/2006, under Sections 324, 323, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopada, District Jalgaon, has given rise to the present application. 3. It is revealed that the cross-examination of the complainant was closed on 26-08-2008, and on the next adjourned 2 4984.11 Cri.Appln. date before further evidence was recorded an application was moved seeking further cross-examination of the complainant. It was pleaded that due to low blood pressure, learned Advocate lost clear perception of the matter and the effective cross-examination of the complainant remained to be concluded. It was further pleaded that the accused were prepared to pay Bhatta of the complainant and rejection of the application would prejudice the accused. The application was resisted through the say dated 18-09-2009 with the specific contention that the difficulty of the learned Advocate ought to have been revealed at the appropriate time, and therefore, the application deserve a rejection. 4. Learned Trial Court observed that there was lengthy cross-examination and it could not be gathered from the evidence that the learned Advocate was really suffering with low blood pressure. Learned trial Court thereupon, rejected the application. 5. Learned APP Shri Borade for the respondent/ State, concedes that the cross-examination is necessary for revealing the truth in the case and the lapse on the part of the learned Advocate ought not to cost the litigant with the forfeiture of his right to know the truth. The learned Advocate for the applicants readily agreed 3 4984.11 Cri.Appln. to pay cost both to the State as well as witness/ complainant. Hence, the order. ORDER [i] Order dated 01-10-2011 passed below Exh. 20 in R.C.C. NO. 80/2006 pending on the file of leaned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chopada, District Jalgaon is set aside. Permission is granted to further corss-examine the complainant-PW1- Bhagwat Baviskar subject to the applicants depositing cost of Rs. 1500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred) in the trial Court within a week. On depositing the cost, learned trial Court shall issue witness summons to the complainant-PW1-Bhagwat Baviskar and shall proceed to hear the case in accordance with law. [ii] Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred) to be paid to the complainant-PW1- Bhagwat Baviskar out of the amount deposited and the balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) be paid to the State. . Criminal Application No. 4984/2011 stands disposed off accordingly. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* November-11