3 Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent / State would submit that the occurrence took place in the year 1994 and the cognizance of the case was taken during the year 2003 and the trial commenced on 27.01.2011 and 77 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.77 were examined and Exs.1 to 805 were marked by the prosecution and the evidence on the side of the prosecution was closed on 30.10.2018. Thereafter, questioning u/s.313[1][b] Cr.P.C. was completed on 03.12.2018 and excepting A-5, all the other accused have not let in oral evidence. Subsequently, the learned counsel appearing for A-5 withdrew his appearance and A- 5 is contesting the case as Party-in-person. A-5 had examined himself as D.W.1 on 18.12.2018 and has marked Exs.D5 to D18 and had requested time for further defence witnesses. On that day, the petitioner/A-14 was called absent and NBW was issued against him. Thereafter, on the petition being filed by the petitioner/A-14, the Warrant was recalled on 31.01.2019. Subsequently, the prosecution has filed an application to recall D.W.1 for cross-examination and it was allowed on 31.01.2019 and D.W.1 was cross-examined by the prosecution on 12.02.2019 and thereafter, the case had been adjourned to 04.03.2019 ; 08.03.2019 and 15.03.2019 respectively for further witnesses on the side of A-5 and much belatedly, at that stage, the application was filed by the petitioner to summon and examine L.W.22 and L.W.44, who are respectively, the Former Collector and Tressury Officer. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that though the prosecution had not stated any objection to recall the witnesses, the Trial Court in its wisdom, taking into consideration the stage of the case, had dismissed the petition following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2015 [1] MLJ [Cri] 288 [Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab]. He would also submit that though the petition has been dismissed on 15.03.2019, the petitioner/A-14 had not taken steps to file the petition to set aside the order immediately. As on date, much water has flown down below the bridge and that the case has been posted to 14.06.2019 for arguments finally and at this stage, the present petition has been filed before this Court to delay the progress and if the petitioner/A-14 had been vigilant, he would have filed the petition immediately after the dismissal by the Trial Court and it would show the conduct of the petitioner. He would submit that the case is of the year 1994 and that the prosecution itself has dispensed with their examination of L.Ws.22 and 44 and it will be impossible to secure the persons to be examined before the Court at this stage after several years and the present petition has been filed with the only motive for delaying further progress of the trial and rendering
