IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an order affecting the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses is not merely interlocutory and can be challenged under revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP and Mr. Kirit R. Chaudhari, learned advocates waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective respondents. Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. The party-in-person, Gitesh Ghanshyambhai Raval, is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) making a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheralu in Criminal Case No. 194 of 2017.

3. The petitioner as an accused, party-in- person submitted that he has been charge-sheeted under sections 297, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the alleged accident dated 05.09.2016 at about 19 Hours.

3.1 The petitioner party-in-person stated that the vehicle involved is his Maruti Car bearing No. GJ-27-J-K-2779. He is resident of Ishanpur, Ahmedabad, and served in a private Engineering Company at Ahmedabad. Party-in-person submits that he has retired in the year 2017 by taking Voluntary Retirement. Party-in-person submitted that he fails to understand as to how he came to be charge-sheeted in the matter, where he had no occasion to go in his Maruti Car at Machhawa to Paldi Road of Taluka Kheralu, District – Mahesana.

3.2 Party-in-person, Mr. Raval, submitted that he himself wanted to cross-examine the witnesses, but considering the interest of the victims and the witnesses, as according to Mr. Raval, he had been wrongly framed in the matter so as to recover the compensation amount by filing an application as Motor Accident Claim Petition under Motor Vehicles Act, since his car is insured, thus had moved Exh.8 before the trial Court.

3.3 Party-in-person, Mr. Raval, submitted that his application Exh.8 was moved under section 242(3) of the Cr.P.C. making a prayer to the Court to allow him to cross-examine the complainant-witness no. 1, after the chief- examination of witness nos.4, 5 and 9, noted in the charge-sheet and till then had made a prayer to postpone the stage of cross-examination of witness no. 1.

3.4 Mr. Raval, party-in-person, submitted that the learned Judge was required to read his application to consider that his prayer was very specific to defer the cross-examination of the witness, and a very specific prayer was made that the chief-examination of witness nos.4, 5 and 9 be taken and, thereafter the option be granted to him as an accused to cross-examine the complainant.

3.5 Party-in-person, Mr. Raval, has relied upon the judgment in case of P.S. Anjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P. rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 874-875 of 2012, Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4286-4287 of 2011, to submit that the contention of impugned order being interlocutory order would not be tenable. Party-in-person stated that in the said judgment the revision filed before the High Court came to be dismissed and thereafter the appeal was moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the matter was before the Court with the appellant’s prayer of deferring the cross- examination of PWs 1 and 2, till such time the Trap Laying Officer - PW-11 was examined by the prosecution, and since the officer had been examined, PWs 1 and 2 need to be recalled for cross-examination.

3.6 Mr. Raval, party-in-person, has also relied on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Kammara Ephraim Samuel Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, rendered in Criminal Petition No. 5759 of 2022, decided on 01.08.2022, to submit that the Andhra Pradesh High Court by referring to the judgment of State of Kerala Vs. Rasheed, (2019) 13 SCC 297, observed that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated the reasons for deferment of cross-examination of the witnesses and further observed that the Trial Court should have granted permission to examine witnesses at one instance.

3.7 The petitioner, party-in-person, has further relied on the