Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are likely to be gravely prejudiced since their prayer to cross-examine the two witnesses and to submit their show cause thereafter came to be rejected. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Kiran Bedi Vs. Committee of Inquiry and another, 1989(1)S.C.C. 494 (2) State of Bihar Vs. L.K. Advani and others, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3357 and on the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim Khan Vs. Susheel Kumar & another, A.I.R. 1983(A.P), 69, in order to support their contentions that in normal practice in a trial, an accused is to be given an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, before leading the defence evidence and, thereafter, accused statement is to be recorded. Therefore, it is claimed that the Commission has erroneously rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners.