[2025:RJ-JP:19393] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2702/2025 Jagdish Prasad Atal S/o Late Shri Prabhati Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o B-439, Mahesh Nagar, P.s. Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 08/05/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Case), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Sessions Case No.17/2016, whereby, petitioner's prayer for summoning the witness PW-26 Gulab Singh for cross examination was dismissed. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to inadvertent circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner could not mark his presence, when the matter was listed for recording the statement of witness PW-26 Gulab Singh. The learned Trial Court while dismissing the application recorded that learned counsel for the petitioner could not mark his presence as he was away on the tour of Odisha and in proof of which he submitted air tickets. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application solely on the ground that PW-26 Gulab Singh is an old person and suffering from illness and it was in the [2025:RJ-JP:19393] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2702/2025] knowledge of learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is listed for recording of the statement of PW-26 Gulab Singh despite that the counsel did not appear before the Court. It is also contended that PW-26 Gulab Singh is an important witness and for just decision of case, cross examining the witness is necessary. The petitioner never took adjournment in the said case and prosecution has already examined 25 witnesses, if an opportunity would not be granted to the petitioner, then petitioner's valuable right for placing his defence would be adversely affected, therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court may be set aside and learned Trial Court be directed to recall the witness PW-26 Gulab Singh, in order to grant an opportunity of cross examine. 3. Heard and perused the material available on record. 4. The impugned order shows that learned counsel for the petitioner could not mark his presence, when the witness PW-26 Gulab Singh was examined. The impugned order also shows that PW-26 Gulab Singh was being called continuously by the Court for the last 20 dates but the witness didn't turn up and the witness was ultimately examined on 15.02.2025. The assistant counsel Shyam Singh submitted an application before the concerned Court about absence of petitioner's counsel Sh. Gauri Shankar along with the air tickets. The learned Trial Court despite submission of air tickets of counsel for the petitioner close the opportunity for cross examining PW-26 Gulab Singh. 5. Considering the above facts and taking into consideration that a fair opportunity of cross-examining of material witness is a valuable right, I deem it just and proper to set aside the order [2025:RJ-JP:19393] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2702/2025] dated 24.04.2025 and direct the learned Trial Court to recall the witness PW-26 Gulab Singh subject to deposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be payable to the witness. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment and if the petitioner fails to cross examine the witness, then no further opportunity will be provided to him to cross examine the PW-26 Gulab Singh. 6. The criminal misc. petition is disposed of with the above direction. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/49