re-call of the victim for cross-examination. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.01.2019 re-called the order of ‘no cross’ subject to the Applicant depositing Rs. 500/- as costs to PW.2. It appears that the said costs have also been deposited by the Applicant. It further appears that the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the victim on 08.04.2019, however, in the interregnum, the Applicant was arrested in connection with another offence on 01.03.2019 and as such, was in custody till 01.06.2019. It appears that on 08.04.2019 when the matter was kept for recording the cross examination of the victim, the Applicant was not produced and as such, again an adjournment Application was filed by the Petitioner’s Advocate, which was rejected by the Sessions Court on 08.04.2019 and Advocate was directed to proceed with the cross-examination. In view of what is stated aforesaid, the challenge to the impugned order of ‘no cross’ dated 15.10.2018 does not survive. It appears that the Applicant could not remain present on 08.04.2019, as he was in custody in connection with another offence and as such, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have granted adjournment on this count. Neither was the Applicant produced by the police before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned APP states that they will produce the victim on the date given by the trial Court to enable the Advocate for the Petitioner to cross examine. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also assures that no adjournment will be sought by him on any count and that he will proceed with the case on the dates given by
