Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36940 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5219 of 2025 Applicant :- Ganga Bux Singh Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satyendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants has challenged the validity of an order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Gangster Act/ Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow in Session Case No. 295 of 2010 "State Vs. Ganga Bux Singh Yadav And Others" arising out of Case Crime No. 464 of 2009, under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986., Police Station Cantt., District Lucknow, whereby an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C for permission of cross-examining P.W.3 has been rejected. 3. Examination-in-Chief of P.W.-3 was conducted on 06.11.2024, while the applicants were lodged in jail and they were made to appear before the court through video conferencing. Although, the learned counsel for the applicants commence cross-examination of P.W.-3, but after some questions, he sought adjournment stating that some consultation was required to be made with the applicants and their counsel before further cross-examination of P.W.-3. This application was rejected by the trial court by the following order:- "No sufficient ground, hence rejected." 4. After that, the applicants filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C being given an opportunity for cross -examination of P.W.-3, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 03.06.2025, stating that examination-in-chief of P.W.-3 was conducted about two and half months after filing of the Vakalatnama and the learned counsel for the applicants ought to have made necessary consultations during the intervening period. 5. Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that necessity of consultation between the applicants and their counsel arose after examination-in-chief of P.W.-3. Had the applicants been present in person in the court. Their counsel could have made the requisite consultations with them, but as the applicants were not physically present in the court and they were appearing through video conferencing, their counsel could not make the necessary consultation with them and it made out a sufficient ground for adjournment of the case to enable the learned counsel for the applicants to make necessary consultation and obtain instructions from them. 6. The learned A.G.A has opposed the application and he has submitted that the section proviso appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 346 provides that:- "When witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall granted without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing. " 7. Reply to the aforesaid objection of the learned A.G.A, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that physical absence of the applicants at the time of examination-in-chief of P.W.-.3 and consequent denial of opportunity of consultation between them and their client made out a special reason for adjournment of the case so as to enable the learned counsel for the applicants to make necessary consultation with him and obtain necessary instructions before cross-examining P.W.3. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants. It is necessary for any counsel to be given an opportunity to seek complete instructions from his client and instructions cannot be obtained at any single stage at one go for the entire case. If any eyewitness is examined by the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused deems it proper to make consultation with his client and obtained instructions before cross-examining the witness, this opportunity cannot be denied to the accused and his counsel. 9. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the denial of opportunity of consultation between the accused and his client has resulted in a failure of justice to the applicants and for this reason, the trial court ought to have allowed the application under section 311 Cr.P.C and permitted cross-examination of P.W.-3 by the counsel for the applicants. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the order dated 03.06.2025 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside 11. Accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with 528 B.N.S.S. is allowed and the order dated 3.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Gangster Act/ Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow in Session Case No. 295 of 2010 "State Vs. Ganga Bux Singh Yadav And Others" arising out of Case Crime No. 464 of 2009, under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986., Police Station Cantt., District Lucknow is set aside. 12. The application under section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the applicants stands allowed. The learned counsel for the applicants informs that the trial is next fixed for 04.07.2025. The learned A.G.A is directed to ensure presence of P.W.-3 before the trial court on the next date fixed. Learned counsel for the applicants shall cross examine P.W.-3 on the next date fixed i.e on 04.07.2025 and no further adjournment shall be granted to him for this purpose. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench