In this appeal against conviction, I do not propose to go into the facts or evidence because I am satisfied that the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge acted irregularly in shutting out defence evidence.

2. After the prosecution evidence was over, the appellant was called upon to enter upon his defence. He filed a schedule of three witnesses. They were summoned and all of them appeared on 22-9-1990. Two of them are PWs 5 and 8, who were already cross-examined. The appellant wanted to further cross-examine PW 5 for some purpose, including confrontation with Ext. P 18. On the ground that the appellant could have cross-examined the witness with reference to Ext. P 18 on the previous opportunity, Special Judge disallowed further examination and discharged the witness. The purpose of further examination of PW 8 was to prove some documents. Since these documents were not relied on by the prosecution, that witness was also discharged without permitting examination.

3. Right of the accused to adduce evidence of his choice is part of fair trial. Whether it be sessions trial, trial of a summons case, warrant case or summary trial, that right is there when it comes to the stag