Judgment FAROOQ HASAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The case against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC is pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and in that case give witnesses have been examined but on the date when the statement of the witnesses were to be recorded counsel for the accused-petitioner was not present and a prayer was made by the accused-persons. But the learned trial court did not allow the prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17-12-1984 an application was filed by the petitioner with this prayer that the eye witnesses whose statement have already been recorded be recalled for cross-examination. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that many opportunities were given to the accused-petitioner to cross-examine the eye witnesses and the witnesses-were recalled and they were present in the Court but because of the absence of the counsel for the accused persons the witnesses were not cross-examined. Thereafter a last opportunity was given to the accused petitioners and the case was fixed on 5-8-1988. On that date also the witnesses were present in the Court but the counsel for the accused-petitioner could not appear in the. Court so the witnesses were not cross-examined. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cross-examination is a fundamental right of an accused person and cannot be deprived of that right and in case the counsel is absent then it is the duty of the learned trial Court to have appointed some as amicus curiae so as to crossexamine the witnesses but instead of passing a legal and just order, the learned trial Court passed an unjust order and thereby deprived the petitioner from cross-examining the witnesses. ( 3 ) AS said earlier, the prayer for recalling the witnesses was of such persons who were important witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that in the F. I. R. the name of the present petitioner does not find place but subsequently the name of the accused persons have been shown in the police statement and in the Court statement of the witnesses. ( 4 ) IT is thus clear that an important testimony was made by the witnesses and clarification was, therefore, necessary by way of cross-examination but the learned trial Court failed to consider this important aspect of this case. ( 4 ) IT is thus clear that an important testimony was made by the witnesses and clarification was, therefore, necessary by way of cross-examination but the learned trial Court failed to consider this important aspect of this case. When the petitioner was not known to the witnesses then identification parade was required to be conducted but no such identification parade has been held by the Investigation Agency so this is also a circumstance to recall the witnesses or cross- examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the following cases in support of his submissions; Salim and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1989 RCC 337), Ram Mahesh Pandey and Ors. , v. State of U. P. . (1987 All. Vol 2 Crimes 607) and Jagjeevan Ram v. State of Raj. , (1991 Cr. L. R. Raj. 172 ). ( 5 ) I have perused the judgment of these authorities and I fully agreed with the view taken in these cases. So, if the reliance is placed on the above cited cases then definitely this is a fit case where powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should be exercised in the interest of justice. ( 6 ) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the views taken in the above mentioned authorities, I find no reason to take a different view in the present case. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons given above, this miscellenous petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Distt. , Jaipur dated 26-2-1991 is set aside and the, application of the petitioner dated 17-12-1984 for recalling the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination is, therefore, allowed the learned trial Court is directed to recall the witnesses whose crossexamination is required by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear in the Court on 26-8-1991 alongwith his counsel before the trial Court. The learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the witnesses on that date. Petition allowed.