pmw * 1 * wp899-11-902 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 899 OF 2011 Pravin Sadashiv Parab & Ors. ..... Petitioner V/s. The State (DCB CID Unit XII) ..... Respondents Mr. Milan Desai i/b. Mr. Sunil S. Vichare for petitioner. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP. Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st December, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the counsel, the petition is immediately taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition challenges correctness and legality of the order dated 19th March, 2011 by which the petitioner’s application for recalling PW 3 for the purpose of cross-examination was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner also seeks to recall PW 5 and PW 9 who had been subsequently examined, for the purpose of cross-examination. It appears that on 19th March, 2011 when PW 3 was examined, the counsel for the petitioner was not present in the court. He reached the court just few pmw * 2 * wp899-11-902 minutes after the evidence-in-chief of PW 3 was over. He, therefore, filed application for recalling of the witness for the purpose of cross- examination. His request was declined. Since the request was made immediately after closing of the evidence of the PW 3 and particularly when PW 3 was very much present in the Court the Trial Court ought to have granted the application and not denied the opportunity of cross- examination to the petitioner. On the same day, thereafter, evidence of PW 5 and PW 9 also came to be recorded and an opportunity to cross- examine them was denied. Irrespective of the manner in which the matters are attended to, it is the duty of the court to ensure that an opportunity of cross-examination is reasonably afforded to the parties so as to meet the ends of justice. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.]