Order.- The facts have been stated by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in his order of reference. From the facts it is clear that the Advocate who had been engaged by the accused in this case was absent when the prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused requested the Court to grant time because his Advocate was absent. The Court refused to adjourn the case and asked the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and if not to pay the expenses for recalling them. On being told so, the accused appears to have cross-examined the witnesses. Thereafter, he made an application requesting the Court to recall the witnesses so that his Advocate may cross-examine them. The Court refused the request and proceeded to pass judgment convicting the accused under sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The request of the accused on the facts of this case was a bona fide one. In a criminal trial, it is desirable to afford all reasonable opportunities to the accused to defend himself effectively. Justice must not only be done but appear to be done. The learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the request of the accused. 2. I, therefore, accept the reference, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and direct the learned Magistrate to give an opportunity to the accused as requested by him and then dispose of the case according to law.