[2025:RJ-JP:43955] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6598/2022 Jahid Ali Son of Maksud Ali, Resident of 289, Gujaro Ka Chowk Lankapuri, Bhatta Basti, Jaipur City (North) (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Pinki Wife of Mushraf Ali, Resident of 289, Gujaro Ka Chowk Lankapuri, Bhatta Basti, Jaipur City (North) (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mamoon Khalid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-PP Mr. Mohd. Adil JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II by which the prayer made by the petitioner for recalling the witness PW-1“P”, PW-2 “N” and prosecutrix “K” has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 354, 354-A IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act before the Court of Special Judge POCSO Cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on the fateful day, when the case was posted for 10.10.2019, statements of three witnesses PW-1“P”, PW-2 “N” and prosecutrix “K” were recorded. Counsel submits that on the said [2025:RJ-JP:43955] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6598/2022] date, advocate of the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on account of his illness. Hence, in absence of the petitioner's advocate, the opportunity of cross-examination was closed. Counsel submits that an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 29.11.2021 for re-summoning the witnesses as the petitioner could not put his defence by asking relevant questions in their cross-examination. The cross examination is a statutory right of an accused which has been denied by the trial court by passing the order impugned. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing the trial for the offences under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and Sections 354, 354-A of IPC before the Court of Special Judge POCSO Cases. This fact is not in dispute that statement of three witnesses PW-1“P”, PW-2 “N” and prosecutrix “K” were recorded before the trial court on 10.10.2019. This fact is also not in dispute that when the cross-examination of these witnesses was to be made on the said date, opportunity of the petitioner was closed and the matter was posted for some other day for recording the statement of the petitioner. This fact is not in dispute that no application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was submitted in a considerable time and after a lapse of more than two years, an application was submitted on 29.11.2021 with a prayer to re-summon the aforesaid witnesses for the purpose of their cross-examination. This fact is also not in dispute that [2025:RJ-JP:43955] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6598/2022] inadvertently and deliberately, delay has been caused by the petitioner by not moving such application for re-summoning the three witnesses for a considerable time of more than two years but this fact can not be denied that cross-examination is a statutory right which has been closed by the trial court on the said date when the statement of above three material witnesses were recorded. Conducting the fair trial is the fundamental right of an accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Considering the above, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition with the following conditions:- (I) The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- at the trial court in the Litigation Welfare Fund and the same would be utilised by the trial court in the interest and welfare of poor and needy litigants, as and when required. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 shady plants in their vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of two weeks from today and he is further directed to look after these plants. (III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these plants before the trial court to show that the condition No.II imposed by this Court has been duly complied by him. 6. The reasons for passing the present order directing the petitioner to plant 25 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or [2025:RJ-JP:43955] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6598/2022] centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment. 7. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, no opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses and if the aforesaid conditions are complied with by the petitioner within the above stipulated time, the Trial Court is directed to re-call the above noted three witnesses by fixing a short date and grant only one last opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses. In case, due to pauctiy of time, the aforesaid exercise is not completed on that date then the trial Court would fix a short date. 8. Before parting with this order, it is expected from the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to conclude the trial as the matter is still lying pending before it for last six years. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal misc. petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/108