2025:UHC:666 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 34 of 2024 10 February, 2025 Bittu Alias Surendra --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the order dated 14.12.2023, whereby, the adjournment application was moved by the applicant for seeking time to cross-examination of the PW-13 Inspector Pankaj Devrani, was rejected. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that PW-13 Inspector Pankaj Devrani is the Investigating Officer of the matter and his examination in-chief was recorded before the learned trial court on 25.01.2020, on which date, the adjournment was sought on behalf of the applicant- accused for cross-examination. Thereafter, on 12.05.2023 the witness PW-13 Inspector Pankaj Devrani was before the trial court, but, the cross- 2025:UHC:666 2 examination could not have been conducted on behalf of the applicant-accused and the opportunity of cross-examination was closed by the learned trial court vide order dated 12.05.2023. 4. An application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant-accused on 01.06.2023, which was allowed on 30.09.2023 and a date was fixed to cross-examine the said witness on 04.12.2023. On that day, the prosecution has taken adjournment as the witness was not present to be cross examined and the date was adjourned to 14.12.2023 for cross-examination. On 14.12.2023, the witness was present, but an adjournment was sought by the applicant-accused for cross- examination of witness PW-13 Inspector Pankaj Devrani on the ground of engagement of another counsel. This application was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.12.2023. 5. I have gone through the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure No.5 to the C482 application). The reasons which have been assigned for rejecting the application dated 14.12.2023 are quite convincing, as while allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 30.09.2023, a conditional order was passed and it has been stated in the said order that if on the date fixed witness is present and the witness is not cross-examined, the opportunity of cross-examination shall be closed. It is on this conditional order, the Court is not inclined to give further opportunity to the applicant-accused to cross-examine the witness PW-13 Inspector 2025:UHC:666 3 Pankaj Devrani. The reasons cited by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while rejecting the order dated 14.12.2023, are quite convincing in view of the order passed on 30.09.2023. This Court, therefore, doesn’t find any illegality in the impugned order dated 14.12.2023. 6. Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.02.2025 PN