Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010239392025 2025:GAU-AS:17647 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1382/2025 MD. MANNAS ALI S/O LATE ABDUL KHALEQUE. R/O- VILLAGE- BORTHOLKACHARIGAON, P/S- MOIRABARI, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN - 782001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI PANKAJ BORAH ASI MORIGAON POLICE STATION. R/O- MORIGAON WARD NO.9 P.O. AND DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. FIRUZ KHAN, MR. ABHIJIT MENA,MR. T K DAS,MR U CHAUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.12.2025 Heard Mr F Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State Page No.# 2/3 respondent and for the informant. 2. The grievance raised in this criminal petition is against the order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, in Special Case No. 15/2023, whereby the cross-examination of PW-4 was postponed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-, and the cross-examination of PW-5 was dispensed with, in exercise of authority under provisions of Section 309 (2) (C) of the CrPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the same day, the learned counsel for the petitioner was present in the Court, but he was not available till 01:00 pm, when the order was passed. There was a bona fide intention to take up the cross-examination after 1 (one) week, since the learned counsel for the petitioner was otherwise engaged. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ends of justice would be met if the cross-examination of the PW-5 is allowed, subject to such just conditions as this Court may impose and that the imposition of cost on the accused with regard to the postponement of the cross-examination of the PW-4 fixed at Rs. 2,000/- is on the higher side and needs interference of this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although he was available for cross-examination, the orders passed by the learned Trial Court clearly records that the defence counsel did not appear till 01:00 pm. 5. Without going into the merits of the submissions made by both the contesting parties, this Court deems it fit to interfere with the dispensation of the cross-examination of the PW-5, as directed in order dated 17.09.2025. The order dated 17.09.2025 is accordingly, interfered with. The accused petitioner shall be given the opportunity to cross-examine the PW-5, in accordance with law, by the learned Trial Court, on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court for such cross-examination. On the failure of the accused petitioner to effectuate cross-examination on the fixed date, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to pass such necessary orders, as may be required. Further, This Court directs that the payment of cost on the postponement of the cross- Page No.# 3/3 examination of PW-4 is interfered with. However, a cost of Rs. 1,000/- be paid to the PW-5 on his appearance, since he has to re-appear in the matter now. 6. The Criminal Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant