ANUP DEB, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. B. K. Rai, learned advocate appearing for the accused and Mr. S. P. Wangdi, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. ( 2 ) BY filing this application, Mr. B. K. Rai, learned Advocate submits that on 26/05/2001 the Investigating Officer (in short the I. O.) was cross-examined and as the cross-examination could not be completed by the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons, the I. O. has to be cross-examined again. Mr. Rai submits that since it was already 4. 00 p. m. , the cross-examination could not be completed. ( 3 ) IT is the duty of the lawyers conducting the case for the prosecution as well as accused to see that if the examination or cross-examination of witness is not completed on a particular day, it should continue on the next working day and in the present case, time was granted till 27/06/2001. The learned trial Court should not have granted such long adjournment, particularly when the I. O. will have to be cross-examined. ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of N. G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde (Civl Appeal No. 3543 of 2001 arising out of S. L. P. (Civil) No. 11809 of 2000) (reported in AIR 2001 SC 2028) observed as follows (para 19 of AIR) :-"in R. D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264 : (AIR 2000 SC 2912) this Court has quoted the above definition rendered by Darling, J. , which was subsequently approved by the Privy Council in George Frier Grahame v. Attorney General, AIR 1936 PC 224 and then observed thus : "misconduct envisaged in S. 35 of the Advocates Act is not defined. The section uses the expression "misconduct, professional or otherwise". The word "misconduct" is a relative term. It has to be considered with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein such term occurs. It literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. " advocate abusing the process of Court is guilty of misconduct. When witnesses are present in Court for examination the advocate concerned has a duty to see that their examination is conducted. It has to be considered with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein such term occurs. It literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. " advocate abusing the process of Court is guilty of misconduct. When witnesses are present in Court for examination the advocate concerned has a duty to see that their examination is conducted. We remind that witnesses who come to the Court, on being called by the Court, do so as they have no other option, and such witnesses are also responsible citizens who have other work to attend for eking out livelihood. They cannot be treated as less respectables to be told to come again and again just to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. If the advocate has any unavoidable inconvenience it is his duty to make other arrangements for examining the witnesses who is present in Court. Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who are present in Court even without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of advocate's duty to the Court as that would cause much harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Such dereliction if repeated would amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned. Legal profession must be purified from such abuses of the Court procedures. Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also professional misconduct. " ( 5 ) IN the present case, it could not be said that the advocates have abused the process of Court, but they have failed in their duties in not making an application for cross-examination of the I. O. on the next working day. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, an application has been filed on behalf of the accused for fixing an early date for further cross-examination of the I. O. ( 7 ) THE accused and the I. O. , present in the Court, are directed to appear before the learned District and Sessions Judge (Special Division) on 31/05/2001 and learned trial Court shall do well to complete the proceeding as early as possible. Order accordingly. --- *** ---