JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. In this case Iqbal Singh and Swarn Singh, accused are stated to be facing their trial for the offences under sections 304-A and 498-A IPC and in the alternative 306 IPC. It appears that the prosecution had produced their witnesses for being examined by the learned trial Judge on 14.7.97. The witnesses so produced could however not be examined on the ground that it was stated on behalf of the accused that they had preferred some revision petition before this court. The learned trial Judge rightly ignored such ground for adjourning the case but at the same time she adjourned the hearing of the case and deferred the examining of the witnesses present in the court on the ground that the defence counsel was busy in some other court. The same history appears to have been repeated on the subsequent date of hearing when the case was adjourned to 25.7.97 and the witnesses, present, were bound down for the adjourned date. 4. It was submitted that Sadul Singh, petitioner, is an old man of 68 years of age, suffering from some heart ailment and his evidence, if not recorded earlier, may dis-appear. It has further been submitted that the defence was trying to win over the other prosecution witnesses. Under the scheme of the Code a Session trial, which involves the trial of a grave and heinous offences, should be heard day after day till the trial is complete. Departure from this general principle should be recorded under very special circumstances. In the present case the accused were facing trial for a grave and heinous offence. The learned Judge was expected to have proceeded with recording the evidence of the witnesses, present in the court. The hearing of the case may certainly be adjourned to accommodate the defence counsel but such adjournment should not be allowed in a routine way so as to take away the very spirit of a speedy trial in a case, particularly a Sessions trial. It is for the defence and to be more particular, the accused, to make arrangement for conducting cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses at their trial, once the date of recording of prosecution witnesses in the case is adjourned. It is for the defence and to be more particular, the accused, to make arrangement for conducting cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses at their trial, once the date of recording of prosecution witnesses in the case is adjourned. The trial Judge should not, in such case, adjourn the hearing of the case only to accommodate the defence counsel. 5. It is expected that the learned Judge would take due note of the observations made here-in-above. It is further expected of the learned trial Judge that all the witnesses, who. are produced on the adjourned date of hearing, shall be examined by the court. 6. With the above observations the petition is disposed of. *******