JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the sides at admission stage.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed below Exh.109 in Sessions Case No. 40/2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar dated 01.04.2022, thereby, cross-examination of four eye witnesses came to be deferred.

3. Heard Mr Swapnil Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Dhananjay Shinde, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and Mr P.G. Borade, learned APP for respondent No.1/State.

4. Mr Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that an application moved on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (original accused) by taking aid of section 231(2) of Cr.PC, nowhere assigns any reason for deferment of the cross-examination of the eye witnesses. He submitted that it is discretion vested with the Court in view of section 231 (2) of the Cr.PC to defer the cross-examination having regard to the facts of the case. He submitted that in the present case, not a single witness is entered into witness box, when the application on behalf of the accused came to be moved vide Exh.109 under section 231 (2) of the Cr.PC. The applicati