p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 1384 of 2025 Gyanaranjan Pradhan @ Jogi ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ……. Opposite Party (s) Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC Mr. Ashok Das, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 09.07.2026 Order No. 08. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The present CRLMC has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that Your Lordships be graciously pleased to allow this application, by setting aside the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in T.R. Case No. 16 of 2022 arising out Ranpur P.S. Case No.101 of 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Nayagarh in rejecting the application file U/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C and further be pleased to allow the petitioner to cross examine P.W.1 (informant) in the interest of justice. And pass such other order/order, direction/direction as this Hon'ble deem fit and proper.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 27.04.2023, the conducting counsel for the Petitioner was present before the trial Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Jul-2026 19:28:10 Signature Not Verified p. 2 court. However, due to illness, he was unable to cross-examine the informant (P.W.1). Consequently, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.1 for cross-examination. However, the learned trial court, vide order dated 30.01.2025, rejected the said application on the ground that the Petitioner had already got an opportunity to cross-examine the P.W.1 but he was declined to cross-examine the P.W.1 and, accordingly, other witnesses have been examined. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that since the examination of the witnesses have not been completed so far, the Petitioner prayer for cross-examination of the P.W.1 may be considered, as it is likely to cause irreparable prejudiced to the Petitioner, if the P.W.1 is not examined. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner admits that the advocate engaged at the time of examination of P.W.1, did not cross- examine the P.W.1. But, later it was realize that cross-examination of P.W.1 is necessary and it is likely to impact the outcome of the case. 7. In view of the above and considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the CRLMC is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Court under POCSO Act, Nayagarh in T.R. Case No.16 of 2022 is hereby set aside. The Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Jul-2026 19:28:10 Signature Not Verified p. 3 Petitioner is permitted to cross-examine P.W.1. It is made clear that, the Petitioner shall not be granted more than one opportunity for such cross-examination. The learned trial court shall fix a particular time frame so that the trial is not unnecessarily delayed. 8. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. 1. 2. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu