Honble SINGH, J. – This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 1st August, 97, by which order the application dated 4th June, 97 moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. (2). The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below :– (3) Sessions Case No. 10/97 State vs. Kishan Singh is pending in the Court oflearned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar. Charges have been framed and as many as 9 witnesses for the prosecution have been examined. On 3rd June, 97, prosecution witness Laxman Singh was present. His examination-in- chief was recorded. For the purpose of cross-examination, the case was adjourned to 4th June, 97. On 4th June, 97, the counsel for the accused petitioner didnot appear. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge declined to grant further adjournment for cross-examination of Laxman Singh P.W. 9, and thereby put an end to the right of the accused petitioner to cross-examine Laxman Singh P.W. 9. (4). On 4th June, 97, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved be-fore the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar praying that Laxman Singh P.W. 9 be re-summoned for the purpose of cross-examination. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application dated 4th June, 97. The main ground on which the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge based his order was that ampleopportunity had been given to the accused for the purpose of cross-examination and that opportunity was not availed of. It was further observed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge that it was the responsibility of the counsel for the accused to appear in Court for cross-examination of the prosecution witness and since he did not appear for the aforesaid purpose, the application for resummo-ning of the witness did not deserve to be allowed. (5). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Shri Laxman Singh P.W. 9 is one of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution. He is an eye-witness and if his testimony is allowed to remain in uncross-examined, grave injustice is likely to occur. He has therefore, prayed that the impugned orderpassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be set-aside and a direction be given for the re-summoning of the prosecution witness Laxman Singh P.W. 9. (6). He is an eye-witness and if his testimony is allowed to remain in uncross-examined, grave injustice is likely to occur. He has therefore, prayed that the impugned orderpassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be set-aside and a direction be given for the re-summoning of the prosecution witness Laxman Singh P.W. 9. (6). The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and prayed for the dismissal of this petition. (7). The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed bythis Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 451/97, on 8th July, 97. (8). In trials of criminal cases, the ultimate object of conducting a trial is to ascertain the truth of the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused persons. The trial against the accused person commences with the framing of the charge and recording the plea of the accused. When a charge is read over to theaccused person, it is open to him to plead guilty or to plead not guilty or to refuse to plead at all. In case, accused person pleads guilty, the Court may convict him on the basis of plea of guilty. If the accused does not plead guilty or does not plead at all, the Court has to conduct a trial. During trial, the prosecution is required to produce its evidence documentary as well as oral. The evidence is to be scrutinisedfor the purpose of finding out whether it is relevant and admissible. It is further required to be proved in accordance with law and while it is the burden of the prosecution to produce evidence, which is relevant and admissible and to prove the facts alleged by it, the accused person has a right to test the reliability of the evidence produced by the prosecution. This right is generally exercised by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, explaining circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused person under Section 313 and if necessary by production of evidence in defence. These rights are generally included in the right to be defended, which has been conferred by Article 22(2) of the Constitution. (9). Whether the accused person exercises his right to be defended in one way or the other, the duty of the Court to administer justice remains uneffected. These rights are generally included in the right to be defended, which has been conferred by Article 22(2) of the Constitution. (9). Whether the accused person exercises his right to be defended in one way or the other, the duty of the Court to administer justice remains uneffected. Proviso given in Section 165 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the judgment of the Court is to be based on facts declared by the Evidence Act to be relevant and duly proved. (10). In light of above mentioned facts, two things are very clear. The first is that the Court has to ensure that the ends of justice are not defeated in any manner and that the judgment is based upon facts declared by the Evidence Act to be relevant and duly proved, and second is that the parties must be given an opportunity to exercise their respective rights in accordance with the provisions of the Cri-minal Procedure Code. (11). The rights of the parties in the matter of conduct of trial including the right to produce evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses are not absolute. According to the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, every criminal case is required to be tried and disposed of in one session. Adjournment of the cases ispermitted by Section 309 Cr.P.C. only for reasons to be recorded, and therefore, a judicial duty is enjoined on the courts to proceed with the hearing, once the hearing in the case has commenced. Section 309 Cr.P.C. reads as under : ``309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings – (1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possi- ble, and in particular, when the examination of witness has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. (2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody; Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time: Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him. (12). A bare perusal of Section 309 Cr.P.C. shows that every criminal courttrying a criminal case has the power to control the proceedings and to take steps for the expeditious disposal of the proceedings initiated before it. Section 309 Cr.P.C. therefore confers a power on the criminal Court to refuse to grant adjournments at the request of the parties, if such request in the facts and circumstances of the case is without sufficient grounds necessary for adjournment of a case under Section 309 Cr.P.C. If a criminal Court exercises the power given by Section 309 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, no party to the case can make a grievance that the criminal Court was wanting in jurisdiction or that any illegality has been committed by it. Rights of the parties to prosecute and defend are not absolute rights, and therefore, they cannot be allowed to eclipse the powers of a criminal Court under Section 309 Cr.P.C. (13). Once a trial has commenced, it is the duty of the prosecution to produce all the witnesses in the same session and it is equally the duty of the accused to exercise the right to be defended in accordance with the order of the Court atappropriate stage in the same session. Neither the prosecution, nor the accused has a right to seek adjournments unless the grounds necessary for adjournment under Section 309 Cr.P.C. are prima- facie established. Neither the prosecution, nor the accused has a right to seek adjournments unless the grounds necessary for adjournment under Section 309 Cr.P.C. are prima- facie established. In this connection it would be useful to draw attention to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court made in Lt. Col. S.J. Choudhary vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1). The Honble SupremeCourt observed :– ``We think it is an entirely wholesome practice for the trial to go on from day-to-day. It is most expedient that the trial before the court of Session should proceed and be dealt with continuously from its inception to its finish. Not only will it result in expedition, it will also result in the elimination of manoeuvre and mischief. It will be in the interest of both the prosecution and the defence that the trial proceeds from day-to- day. It is necessary to realise that Sessions cases must not be tried piecemeal. Before commencing a trial, a Sessions Judge must satisfy himself that all necessary evidence is available. If it is not, he may postpone the case, but only on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possible period. Once the trial commences, he should, except for a very pressing reason which makes an adjournment inevitable, proceed de die in diem until the trial is concluded. We are unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be experienced by the petitioner. It is stated that his Advocate is finding it difficult to attend the court from day-to-day. It is the duty of every Advocate, who accepts the brief in a criminal case to attend the trial from day-to-day. We cannot over-stress the duty of the Advocate to attend to the trial from day-to-day. Having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend. (14). In short the right of the criminal courts under Section 309 Cr.P.C. to so manage the proceedings of that court so as to avoid all avoidable delays, cannot be denied. These rights can be and must be exercised with due diligence and inaccordance with the orders passed by the Court. Parties to the case are as much responsible for expeditious disposal of the case, as the courts conducting trials. These rights can be and must be exercised with due diligence and inaccordance with the orders passed by the Court. Parties to the case are as much responsible for expeditious disposal of the case, as the courts conducting trials. In a society, where parties interacting with each other have their own respective rights which are not always identical, no party can be allowed to claim absolute rights in any matter because to allow absolute rights to any party would inevitably lead tothe curtailment of the rights of others. (15). Frequent petitions which are being filed for quashing the proceedings on the ground of unnecessary delay in trial are evidence of the fact that the delay in disposal of cases has reached such a stage when the question of violation of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution has become relevant. There-fore, any claim of absolute rights whether it is of the prosecution or of the accused, must be rejected as unfounded. In order the criminal courts may expeditiously dispose of the cases pending before them, their statutory rights under Section 309 Cr.P.C. must not only be recognised, it must be respected so that the criminal Courts may decline to grant adjournments which are unnecessary. (16). In view of above reasons, a distinction must be made between those cases in which the order refusing to grant adjournment is challenged on the ground that accuseds right to be defended has been violated and the cases in which the order is challenged on the ground that if it is allowed to remain in force, it is likely to defeat the ends of justice. This distinction is necessary in view of the fact that the rights of the parties are not absolute and these rights are subject to the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C., and if a Court before whom a case is pending, refuses to grant adjournment on account of the negligence of any party, the order cannot be challenged on the ground that it has unnecessarily or unlaw-fully curtailed the right to be defended. On the other hand, the ends of justice are not subject to any such limitation. The Court is duty bound to ensure that justice is one in every case pending before it and the order refusing to grant adjournment under Section 309 Cr.P.C. may not be violative of the right to be defended. (17). On the other hand, the ends of justice are not subject to any such limitation. The Court is duty bound to ensure that justice is one in every case pending before it and the order refusing to grant adjournment under Section 309 Cr.P.C. may not be violative of the right to be defended. (17). Even if there be any error or irregularity in passing an order under Section309 Cr.P.C., the order passed by the lower court under Section 309 Cr.P.C. cannot be set aside unless it is shown by the facts and circumstances of the case that such order has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. (18). Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads : ``311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. -Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. (19). A bare reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. shows that it is in two parts. The first part provides that any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any per-son in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part provides that the Court shall summon and examine on recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. The first part confer the powers to summon any person in attendance or to recall and re-examine any per-son already examined and the second part makes it obligatory on the part of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any person, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The power conferred by Section 311 Cr.P.C. is in the nature of residuary power which is required to be exercised for the purpose of just decision of the case. (20). The distinction between Section 465 and 311 Cr.P.C. is this. The power conferred by Section 311 Cr.P.C. is in the nature of residuary power which is required to be exercised for the purpose of just decision of the case. (20). The distinction between Section 465 and 311 Cr.P.C. is this. Section 465 Cr.P.C. is applicable to those cases, where the inferior Court has committed any error or irregularity and the order or proceedings of the lower court are challenged on the ground of any error or irregularity. If the order or proceedings of the lower court does not suffer from any error or irregularity, Section 465 Cr.P.C. would haveno application and the order or the proceedings of the inferior court would not be liable to be interfered with by the superior courts. (21). It is quite conceivable that even in those cases in which the order or proceedings of the lower court do not suffer from any error or irregularity , it may be necessary to examine or re- examine any party or witness for the just decisionof the case. If the parties neglect their duty to produce the evidence in the court conducting inquiry or trial or the court rejects the prayer for adjournment under Section 309 Cr.P.C., and thereby puts an end to the rights of the parties to produce their witnesses, it may be necessary to examine or re-examine any person for the just decision of the case. To such cases Section 311 Cr.P.C. applies and under the second part of Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to summon or examine or recall and re-examine any person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. For the purpose of exercising the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to quash and set-aside the order passed by the court under Section 309 Cr.P.C. It may be further pointed out that the expression ``appears to be essential indicates that there should be a genuine necessity of examining or re-examining a witness. A mere likelihood that the witness is likely to give a statement of a certain kind, may not be sufficient to satisfy the test laid down in Section 311 as indicated by the words ``appears to be essential to the just decisionof the case. A mere likelihood that the witness is likely to give a statement of a certain kind, may not be sufficient to satisfy the test laid down in Section 311 as indicated by the words ``appears to be essential to the just decisionof the case. It may be further observed that Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be used for the purpose of restoring the rights of the parties or conferring upon them the rights which were available to them before the passing of the order under Section 309 Cr.P.C. The duty enjoined by Section 311 Cr.P.C. is the duty of the Court, and therefore, in the garb of moving application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the partiescannot get their rights restored, if the opportunity to exercise these rights was lost on account of refusal to grant adjournments under Section 309 Cr.P.C. (22). In short for the purpose of examining or re-examining any witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., if it is necessary to do so for the just decision of the case, it is not necessary to quash and set aside the order passed under Section 309 Cr.P.C. (23). In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Laxman Singh P.W. 9 is an eye-witness of the occurrence. He is a material witness and if his testimony goes uncross-examined, failure of justice may occur. (24). For the above mentioned reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 1st August, 97 and the order dated 4th June, 97 cannot be set-aside onthe ground that they unnecessarily curtail the accuseds right to be defended. But, in view of the provisions of Section 465 Cr.P.C., it is proper to hold that for the ends of justice, it is necessary that one Laxman Singh P.W. 9 should be further examined to test his reliability. (25). For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed. The orderdated 1st August, 97 is hereby quashed and set-aside. It is hereby directed that the witness Laxman Singh P.W. 9 shall be re-summoned. The accused-petitioner shall be given one opportunity make arrangement for the cross-examination of Laxman Singh P.W. 9 by a legal practitioner of his choice. (26). The petition is disposed of accordingly. _