Order.-Mr. Surya Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that complainant examined four witnesses including himself and the cross-examination of those witnesses was deferred by the accused till the charge was framed and after the charge was framed, the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 were recalled and cross -examined by the accused and re-examined and the learned Magistrate passed an order on 23rd September, 1976 stating that the prosecution evidence was closed and the east; is posted to 29th September, 1976 for examination of the accused. But on 29th September, 1976, the complainant filed a petition to permit him to examine an additional witness (P.W.5) who was not examined before the charge was framed. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition and proceeded to examine him in chief. As the junior counsel did not expect this development, and did not find himself able to cross -examine the additional witness without preparation and as his senior was not available in the Court and hence he could not proceed to cross-examine the additional witness (P.W. 5,) he filed a petition to adjourn the case to another day for the purpose of cross-examination of the additional witness. B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document