Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119798 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3245 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 16.5.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Baghpat in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 2015 (State Vs. Rahul) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been rejected on the ground that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-2 was recorded on 11.4.2018 and thereafter, in spite of sufficient time having been granted, no one turned up for cross-examination therefore, the opportunity of cross-examination of P.W.-2 had been closed. 4. It has further been contended that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-3 had been recorded on 23.10.2024 and in the impugned order, it had been recorded that since in spite of sufficient time having been granted, no one turned up for cross-examination of P.W.-3, the opportunity of cross-examination was closed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that from bare perusal of the order-sheet of the trial court, it is apparent that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-2 was recorded on 11.4.2018 and on the same date opportunity of cross-examination for accused had been closed. It has further been argued that the order-sheet of the trial court dated 23.10.2024, categorically demonstrates, that on the said date accused filed an application for exemption from appearance and the said application was allowed but on the same date examination-in-chief of P.W.-3 was recorded and opportunity of cross-examination for the accused had been closed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that the impugned order dated 16.5.2025 suffers from total non application of mind, as it is apparent that the opportunity of cross- examination of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 had been closed on the same date when their examination-in-chief were recorded and no further date has been given to accused for cross-examination of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this criminal revision but could not point out any justifiable reason for which the opportunity of cross- examination of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 may be denied to the accused. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the examination- in-chief of P.W.-2 was recorded on 11.4.2018 and on the same date, learned trial court had closed opportunity of the accused to cross-examine P.W.-2. I further find that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-3 had been recorded on 23.10.2024 and on the said date accused had filed application for exemption from appearance and the said application was allowed but the trial court arbitrarily had closed the opportunity of the accused to cross-examine P.W.-3. 9. This Court is of the view that the opportunity of cross- examination of the witnesses has great importance as only by cross-examination accused can prove himself to be innocent. No doubt, if there is deliberate delay on the part of the accused in cross-examining the witnesses, the trial court can deny the opportunity of cross-examination but in the present case, it is apparent on the face of record that the opportunity to accused for cross-examination of the P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 had been denied on the same day when their examination-in-chief were recorded. 10. This Court is of the view that it is in the interest of justice that the revisionist/accused may be provided one opportunity to cross- examine P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and for that the trial court may fix a date and on that date itself accused may cross-examine P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 16.5.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Baghpat in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 2015 (State Vs. Rahul), is hereby set aside. 12. The trial court is hereby directed to fix one date for appearance of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and on that date, the revisionist/accused shall be granted opportunity to cross-examine the P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. 13. It is provided that the revisionist/accused shall complete his cross-examination of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 on the date fixed by the trial court and no further date shall be provided for the said purpose. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad