JUDGMENT 1. -This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 22.8.1998 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar whereby he closed the cross- examination of Nasruddin by the counsel for the accused- petitioner. 2. Mr. Choudhary contends that the petitioner-accused had a right to cross-examine the witnesses and even if some questions put to the witness could not be allowed by the Court, the counsel for the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to cross- examine the witness on other points. He submits that as the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of cross- examination, it is great injustice to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Kurnbhat, on the other hand, pointing out that after the order dated 22.8.1998 the petitioner had made an application before the Magistrate for recalling the order dated 22.8.1998 and learned Magistrate has requested the Sessions Judge to transfer the case to some other Court, contends that there is no need to pass any order on the present petition. 4. I have considered the above arguments. A perusal of the statement of Nasarudin shows that his examination in chief runs into three pages. He was asked certain questions in cross- examination. It appears that on certain questions the learned Magistrate objected to and as the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted to put the questions, he closed the cross-examination of the witness. In my considered opinion, the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law. The accused has a valuable right of cross-examination to the prosecution witness. If the learned Magistrate thought that irrelevant questions were being asked by the counsel for the accused he could disallow those questions but on that count the cross- examination could not be closed. The learned Magistrate has neither written the question put to the witness which were disallowed by him, nor it appears that he asked the counsel for the petitioner to make an application regarding those questions. Be that as it may, the further cross-examination of the witness could not be denied to the accused. 5. On the ground that on subsequent date the accused moved an application for recalling the order dated 22.8.1998, it cannot be said that this petition does not lie against the order dated 22.8.1998. 6. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The learned Magistrate shalt afford an opportunity to the accused-petitioner to cross- examine the witness. 5. On the ground that on subsequent date the accused moved an application for recalling the order dated 22.8.1998, it cannot be said that this petition does not lie against the order dated 22.8.1998. 6. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The learned Magistrate shalt afford an opportunity to the accused-petitioner to cross- examine the witness. Looking to the order-sheets recorded by the Magistrate, it is deemed proper to transfer the case from the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur who shall decide the case in accordance with law. Since the order dated 22.8.1998 has been set aside there is no need for the trial Court to pass any order on the application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C.Petition allowed. *******