The main legal point established is that the examination of witnesses should be conducted strictly in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, and the trial court's discretion in deferring cross-examination must be exercised judicially and with specific reasons.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Tiwari holding brief of Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as Sri Ram Raj, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following main reliefs:

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set-aside the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow in Sessions Case No. 1309 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansad Badruddin and Another), wherein, the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 was conducted while the examination-in-chief of the PW-2 remained pending, as well as the orders 02.05.2023 and 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow in Sessions Case No. 1309 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansad Badruddin and Another), wherein the learned Trial Court has proceeded to direct that examination-in-chief of all the prosecution witnesses, relied upon in the charge-sheet, be conducted and thereafter the said prosecution witnesses be called for cross examination by the defence, may also kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.

Further, this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the learned Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow to conduct the proceedings of Sessions Case No.1309 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansad Badruddin and Another) in legal and lawful manner, by providing reasonable opportunity to the applicant/accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, before calling the rest of the prosecution witnesses for conducting examination-in-chief, in the interest of justice.

It is further prayed that the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.1309 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansad Badruddin and Another), arising out of FIR No. 04 of 2021, Police Station ATS, Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow, under Sections 120-B, 121-A I.P.C., Sections 13, 16, 18 and 20 of UAPA, 1967 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 3, 25 and 35 Arms Act, 1959, may kindly remain stayed during the pendency of the present Application, in the interest of justice."

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the cross-examination of PW-1 has been done by the present petitioner, however the same opportunity has been closed for other co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No. 1 showing the orders dated 24.04.2023, 02.05.2023 and 15.05.2023 whereby the examination-in-chief of PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 has been done, however none of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have been permitted to be cross-examined by the petitioner and the order dated 15.05.2023 reveals that the learned trial court has observed that after recording the examination-in-chief of all the prosecution witnesses, the opportunity of cross-examination would be provided to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Section 135 and 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 135 of the Act provides the order of production and examination of witnesses and Section 138 of the Act provides the order of examinations. For convenience, Sections 135 and 138 of the Evidence Act read as under :

"135. Order of production and examination of witnesses.—The order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.

138. Order of examinations.—Witnesses shall be first examined-in chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.

The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not b