IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3059 of 2025

PREM NARAYAN NAMDEO AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Vikash Sharma - Advocate for the applicants.

Ms. Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.

None for respondent no.2- Ashish Jain.

ORDER in-chief of PW-1-Ashish Jain, S/o Shri Suresh Jain was conduced but counsel for the accused did not appear and further proceedings were drawn up in the order-sheet in which it is mentioned that accused persons are present in the court. Case is fixed for prosecution evidence and prosecution witness namely Suresh Jain and Suresh Rohra were present.

As per office report the respondent no. 2 is served by RAD mode.

The report is dated 7.1.2026.

Heard on I.A. No.16405/2025, an application for condonation of

delay.

It is allowed and delay in filing of this revision is condoned.

Heard on admission.

The revision is admitted for final hearing.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter heard

finally.

This revision is directed against the order dated 19.7.2024 passed by

learned VIII A.S.J., Bhopal disallowing the application for adjournment for

cross examination of PW-1 Suresh Jain.

2. On perusal of the record, it is seen that on 19.7.2024 examination-

3. Junior counsel Ms. Kirti Kapoor, Advocate informed the court that one of the counsel of the accused persons Shri Shivraj Singh Dangi had done to attend some other case in the court at Berasia whereas the came to Gadarwara to Bhopal for giving evidence.

4. Learned court mentioning all the facts and opined that it was not proper and disallowed the application as the case was listed for examination of prosecution witness. Today order sheet has been filed according to which the case is listed for examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on

8.1.2025 i.e. today.

5. It is seen that the application which was filed by Ms. Kirti Kapoor, Adv. it only mentioned that Shri Shivraj Singh Dangi had gone to Berasia in other case but case number was not mentioned in the application which is must, otherwise how the court would be in a position to know whether the application is bonafide or not. It is also not mentioned that who are the other Advocates in the Vakalatanama and when Shri Shivraj Singh Dangi did not cross examine, why Ms. Kirti Kapoor, who had filed the application did not cross-examine. It is even not mentioned in the application that case file or facts are known to only to Shri Shivraj Singh Dangi and the file is not available. Therefore a very poorly drafted or in alternative carelessly application was filed in the trial court. Even otherwise if a case is fixed then a witness has to be examined and both the parties i.e. the Government Pleader as well as counsel for defence has to remain present. Otherwise on an improper application adjournment is sought then it would be the accused persons who will hold the master key for conduct of the trial. 6. It is also seen that application for condonation of delay was filed after 258 days again showing approach of accused persons that they hardly cared whether the witness is examined or not but if an opportunity is not given to cross - examine the main witness on cost then it would cause serious prejudice to the defence which again would be counter productive for advancement of cause of justice in the long run.

7. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the revision.

8. Therefore as a matter of last indulgence opportunity is granted to cross examine with a condition that if on the date if witnesses are present and if he does not cross examine then the trial court shall be free to pass legal order as it may deem fit in a way that would amount to the accused willingly setting a stage where his conviction would be ensured, this application is allowed at the cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in Bhopal, DALSA as a pre condition. If the amount is deposited a