Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It   is   stated   by   the   counsel   for   revisionist   that   if   said order   is   not   set   aside,   it   would   cause   great   prejudice   to   the revisionist.

3. Counsel   for   respondent/complainant   supports   the impugned   order   and   submits   that   revisionist   is   prolonging   the proceedings in this case.

4. Upon   hearing   and   on   perusal   of   the   impugned   order and material placed on record, I find that respondent/complainant has not been cross examined at all. The complainant witness has not be cross examined by the accused despite several opportunities being  given.   Vide   order   dated  18.08.2017,  Ld.  MM   has   directed that no adjournment shall be given to any party on any ground. On next date of hearing i.e. 22.09.2017, adjournment was sought on behalf of accused/revisionist on the ground that main counsel was not available  being busy in  Hon'ble High Court. It  is to be seen whether  cross   examination  of  respondent/complainant  witness is essential for just decision of the case. On account of delay caused, respondent/complainant can be always compensated by payment of cost. In the considered opinion of this court, cross examination of respondent/complainant is essential for fair trial.