HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6521/2023 Shahista Daughter Of Shri Niyamat Ali, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 34, Gandhi Vihar, Kareem Nagar, Thana Kho Nagoriyan, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Babu Khan Son Of Shri Masit Khan, Resident Of Dhani Chopta Ki, Village Kho Nagoriyan, Thana Malviya Nagar, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Tyagi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan- II by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-summoning the witness PW-4 Rishipal Singh for the purpose of cross examination, has been rejected. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II and the same was also rejected and the Court below held that the impugned order being an interlocutory order, a revision petition would not be maintainable against the same. (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6521/2023] 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC before the trial Court wherein the statements of PW4- Rishipal Singh were recorded on 14.10.2019 but no cross-examination was done by the counsel of the petitioner as he was busy in some other case and on the same day, the petitioner’s opportunity of cross- examination was closed. Counsel submits that unless and until the petitioner is given an opportunity to put forth his defence in the cross-examination of the witness, he would not be in a position to plead his case, therefore an application was submitted by the petitioner for re-summoning of the aforesaid witness for the purpose of cross-examination. However, request has been turned down, hence the petitioner has approached this Court. Therefore, a last opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of cost to the prosecution. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that opportunity to cross-examine to the petitioner was closed by the trial Court on 14.10.2019 but no application was submitted by the petitioner immediately. The petitioner was silent for a considerable amount of time and almost after two and half years, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been submitted on 10.05.2022, hence the trial Court has not committed any error by rejecting the same by holding that the case is lying pending against the petitioner since 2014, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6521/2023] 6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing trial before the trial Court since 2014. This fact is not in dispute that the statements of witness PW4- Rishipal Singh were recorded on 14.10.2019. This fact is also not in dispute that on the said date, when the cross-examination was not done by the counsel of the petitioner, the petitioner’s opportunity of cross-examination was closed. This fact is not in dispute that no application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was submitted by the petitioner immediately but the application was submitted on 10.05.2022 after a period of more than two years. 7. Now the question which remains for consideration before this Court is whether the accused can be deprived of the opportunity to put his defence by way of cross-examination of the material witness only on a technical count that the petitioner’s lawyer was busy in some other Court? 8. The record reveals that for the first time the witness PW4- Rishipal Singh appeared in the Court below on 14.10.2019 and on the same day, the petitioner’s opportunity of cross-examination was closed because his counsel was not available. This fact is not in dispute that on account of absence of his counsel, the opportunity of cross-examination was closed but the trial Court could have granted some reasonable time or a short date to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. However, instead of doing so, the petitioner’s opportunity of cross-examination was closed. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, cross-examination is a statutory right of the accused for the purpose of conducting a fair trial against him and he has been deprived of this right. But looking to the act and conduct of the petitioner and the fact that (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6521/2023] the application was submitted after a delay of two and half years, the last opportunity is granted to the petitioner with the following conditions:- (I) The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- at the trial court in the Litigation Welfare Fund within a period of fifteen days from today 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 with by him. 10. 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 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. 11. If the aforesaid exercise is done by the petitioner within the above stipulated time, last opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination of PW4-Rishipal Singh. The trial Court is expected to re-summon the aforesaid witness by fixing a short date and granting opportunity to the (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6521/2023] petitioner to cross-examine the witness. In case, due to paucity of time, the aforesaid exercise is not completed on that date, then the trial Court shall fix a short date. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to cross-examine the summoned witness PW4- Rishipal Singh on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted by the trial Court and they should be free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 12. Looking to the fact that the trial is pending against the petitioner since 2014 and more than 11 years have passed, it is expected from the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the matter expeditiously as early as possible. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/5