ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have seen the affidavits and the copies of the report annexed to the counter affidavit. 2. We see no justification to interfere in the matter at this stage in view of the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, asked for two pointed directions, namely, : (1) Some of the prosecution witnesses who have already been examined cross examined and discharged in the Sessions trial should be recalled for cross examination and (2) A defence counsel at the cost of the State may be provided as the accused have not been able to get them- 1 selves enlarged on bail and are in custody and are going undefended. 3. Counsel for the State has no objection to a defence counsel being provided in accordance with the rules. He also has no objection to our indicating in this order that it would be open to the accused persons to apply to the learned trial judge to recall any particular prosecution witness who has already been examined and cross examined and discharged for further cross examination on the basis of the Report which has now been disclosed to the accused persons a part of the counter affidavit in this Court. We hope and trust that when such an application is made the learned trial Judge will apply his mind and find out if there is any justification for allowing such further cross examination and in case he is satisfied that in the interest of justice such further cross examination should be allowed, he may do so either immediately or at a later stage after the defence is closed. This is indicated in view j of the representation to us from the Bar that the defence witnesses are being examined from 16th July, 1987. The point of time at which such cross examination will be allowed is a matter for the learned trial Judge to fix in his discretion. We hope it would be done in such a manner that neither party would feel prejudiced. Writ Petitioner is A disposed of accordingly.