Bakhshish Kaur, J.

1. Notice to AG, Haryana. On the asking of the Court Mr. Sultan Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated October 9, 1999 vide which the trial Court after closing the prosecution evidence had also declined the request made by the defence counsel for cross-examining the witnesses whose examination-in-chief was recorded but cross-examination was deferred.

3. A careful reading of the impugned order would certainly reveal that the Court cannot be blamed for the delay in the matter and that too for the purpose of closing the prosecution evidence as the prosecution evidence was closed on the basis of an application moved by the defence and the trial Court relying on Raj Dev Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 3281 had closed the prosecution evidence as an application was moved in this regard that the case is pending since long and the trial has not been concluded, therefore, it should be closed. Later on on knowing the fact that the cross-examination of the witnesses has not been done by the defence counsel, an oral request was made that he be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses.

4. The impugned