ORDER :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. By means of filing the present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for briefly), the applicant has challenged impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge POCSO), Rajkot in Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 54 of 2016 (hereinafter be referred as "the impugned judgment and order").

2. On a request being made by learned advocate for the applicant to decide the revision application finally, as the issue involved in the matter is trivial and the trial is pending before the POCSO Court since 2016, the present revision application is taken up for final hearing today.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashwini K. Mehta for the applicant and learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State of Gujarat.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge refusing to permit the present applicant to cross examine the victim, would cause great injustice to him. The right of cross examination of the victim is very valuable right vested into by the prosecution.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant further argued that offence was registered against the present applicant under Section 376 of I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. That, the learned advocate engaged by the present applicant before the Sessions Court since had not proceeded into the matter, and therefore, the applicant passed a pursis below Exh. 45 to relieve his advocate and requested the court to adjourn the matter so as to engage another advocate as well as filed an application calling for victim for cross examination. That, the application submitted by present applicant below Exh. 58 came to be rejected by the Court below observing that the present applicant wants to prolong the matter as since last 3 adjournments, though victim was present before the court along with her six months old child from Ahmedabad, no cross examination was made by the present applicant.

6. It is further submitted that, the observations of the trial Court are not correct about relieving advocate from the trial. That, right of cross examination of the victim is a valuable right and the same has been denied by the court below and thereby great injustice is caused to the applicant. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to quash and set aside the impugned order passed below Exh. 58 in Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 54 of 2016 dated 10th September 2018 and permit the applicant to cross examine the victim.

7. From the other side learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and argued that as the case is pending since 2016, and the victim was present before the Sessions Court on 16th April 2018, cross examination of the victim was also started by the defence, but was not completed. Thereafter, thrice the victim was present before the Court for her cross-examination, however, no cross-examination was done and therefore, right to cross examine the victim was closed by the Court. That, no illegality is committed by the Sessions Judge in refusing the present applicant to cross examine the victim. That, the present applicant has tried to prolong the matter by relieving his advocate and by passing a pursis below Exh. 45. Thereafter, vide Ex. 58, an application for recalling victim was filed by the present applicant. This conduct of the applicant shows that he is not interested in cross examining the victim. That, no error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the application vide Ex. 58 filed by the present applicant. Hence, learned APP requested to dismiss the present revision application.

8. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP, it appears from