JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record specially the statement of Rihana, P.W. 5 who is said to be deaf and dumb. 2. By the impugned order the learned trial Court has declined the prayer of the petitioner to give him opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the presence of all expert in the language of deaf and dumb. 3. In the impugned order the learned trial court has discussed very many things, which all need not be gone into by me for the present purpose. All that has been contended in the application is that the counsel the accused expressed his inability to cross-examine the witness by putting the questions in the language of signals, whereupon neither the right of cross-examination was closed, nor the statements were reserved, nor any order was passed permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witness with the assistance of expert, and therefore, the witness could not be cross examined on the side of the accused persons. With this it was contended that in the interest of justice the accused should be given opportunity to cross-examine the witness with the assistance of expert. 4. Suffice it to say that a perusal of the statement of Rihana P.W. 5 as recorded, does show that though the learned counsel expressed his inability to cross-examine and putting question in the language of signals; but then the petitioner Narkhan himself desired to ask questions to the witness in the language of signals, which answer has been recorded. It is significant to note that all though it is no-where the allegation of the petitioner, even with respect to the questions put by him in cross-examination and the reply given by the witness, that the question put by the petitioner Narkhan was not rightly understood by the witness, and/or that the answer given by the witness was not rightly understood by the court. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned trial court was in error in declining, to permit the assistance of any expert. 5. Though from perusal of the statement of P.W. 5 it appears that her statement was completed and thereafter the statement of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 had also been recorded. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned trial court was in error in declining, to permit the assistance of any expert. 5. Though from perusal of the statement of P.W. 5 it appears that her statement was completed and thereafter the statement of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 had also been recorded. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused had put one question only looking to the circumstances prevailing in the court at that time, but could not properly cross-examine the witness further, and therefore, in any case, the petitioner should be given sufficient opportunity to complete the cross-examination of the witness at least by himself putting question in the language of signals and eliciting appropriate answers. 6. This request, the learned P.P. also does not seriously oppose. 7. Consequently, while dismissing the revision petition, it is directed that the learned trial court shall procure the attendance of witness P.W. 5 Rihana, and give one appropriate opportunity to petitioner Narkhan to appropriately cross-examine the witness, by himself putting questions in the language of signals, so as to elicit answers, and complete the cross-examination. The learned trial court is directed to expeditiously proceed with the trial. The record of the learned trial court be returned forthwith.Petition dismissed *******