The valuable right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses should not be taken away, particularly when prejudice is caused by not allowing it.

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 order suggests that certain adjournments were given to the defence counsel for cross-examination of the witnesses but for some reason or the other, the witnesses could not be croos-examined. It is well settled that on account of mistake of the defence counsel, the party should not be made to suffer. The valuable right has already accrued to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and in this way the said right cannot be taken away particularly when the prejudice is caused to the accused by not allowing them to conduct the cross-examination of the witnesses.

5. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking by stating at the bar that he will conclude the cross-examination of the witnesses on two dates as the witnesses are stated to be six in number. Trial Court is, therefore, directed to adjust the work accordingly and may allow the accused-petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses on two dates. In case the defence counsel fails to conclude the cross-examination of the witnesses on two dates, then the trial Court will be at liberty to pass any order as it may deemed fit. Prosecution is also directed to make endeavour to produce the witnesses.