G. C. DE, J. ( 1 ) BY this application under section 397/401 read with section 482 Cr. P C the petitioner figured as accused No. 6 has challenged the series of orders passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court at Calcutta in Case No. 2 of 1974 mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the learned Judge, after framing of charges did not give any opportunity in terms of section 246 of the Code to the present petitioner to produce a list of witnesses for cross-examination but the P. W. 1 was produced for cross-examination. The second ground is that the matter is of 1974 and is long pending and the present petitioner is unnecessarily harassed in this long pending case, which should be dropped. ( 2 ) MR. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 246 of the Code made a forceful argument in support of his contention that after the framing of charges it is incumbent upon the Court to call for a list of the prosecution witnesses to be produced for cross-examination by the defence and thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law. It is contended that such an action was not taken after the charges were framed on 12. 7. 85. Mr. Roy placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1992 Crl. LJ 24 (State of Karnataka v. S. Dhandapani Modaliar) argued that sufficient time must intervene between framing of charges and statement of accused about his desire of cross-examination required under section 246 (5) of the Code. In support of his argument Mr. Roy also placed his reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1992 Crl. LJ 2836 (Khaggendranath Chattopadhyay v. Samsud Huda and Ors. ). Placing the above two judgments, Mr. Roy contended that the Court is required to ascertain the wish of the accused before fixing the date of cross-examination of all the prosecution witnesses. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, it is argued on behalf of the State that the Court below by an order dated 6. 2. 97 actually gave such an order and as such, there is no reason to challenge the series of orders passed in this case. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, the charge was framed on 12. 7. 85. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, it is argued on behalf of the State that the Court below by an order dated 6. 2. 97 actually gave such an order and as such, there is no reason to challenge the series of orders passed in this case. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, the charge was framed on 12. 7. 85. The impugned order or orders passed after framing of charges are not placed before this Court by either of the sides and accordingly, it is not possible to state anything as to how and why P. W. 1 was first produced, for cross-examination by the accused persons. It is also to be noted that there are several accused persons, three of them are absconding and few others are reported to be dead for which the case could not be taken up for cross-examination in due course. In the order dated 15. 1. 97, it is indicated that the dates of cross-examination of P. W. s had already been fixed, whereas the order dated 18. 12. 96 indicates that the learned Judge directed the prosecution to produce on P. W. on each of the dates fixed starting from P. W. 1. What orders were actually passed between the date of framing of charge on 12. 7. 85 and the said order dated 18. 12. 96 is not clear. ( 5 ) IT is rightly pointed out by the prosecution that on 6. 2. 97, the learned Judge directed the accused person to submit within 18. 2. 97 a list of prosecution witnesses to be cross-examined. In the said order, it is also indicated that if the list was not produced, P. W. s would be summoned by the Court consecutively as per earlier order dated 18. 12. 96 (wrongly written as 18. 12. 97 in the order ). ( 6 ) IT is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that on 30. 1. 97, the present petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court (annexure 'f' to the present petition) praying for permission to cross-examine the P. W. 1 after completion of the cross-examination of the said witness by the accused No. 3. So, this petition indicates that the P. W. 1 was produced for cross-examination first and the accused person started to cross-examine him after framing of the charge. So, this petition indicates that the P. W. 1 was produced for cross-examination first and the accused person started to cross-examine him after framing of the charge. It is already indicated above that the subsequent orders after framing of the charge have not been produce for ascertaining whether the trial Court gave an opportunity to the defence to produce a list of witnesses to be cross-examined under section 246 (4) of the Code. But production of the P. W. No. 1 for cross-examination and the subsequent cross-examination of the said witness on behalf of the accused persons is indicative of the fact that the accused persons did not object to the production of P. W. No. 1 for cross-examination first. ( 7 ) BUT the contention of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that before production of the witnesses for cross-examination after framing of the charge, it was incumbent upon the Court to give the defence an opportunity to supply list of witnesses in accordance with the provision of section 246 (4) of the Code. It is also submitted that the list of such witness and the order of their production as required by the defence should be honoured and maintained. ( 8 ) THE provision of section 246 of the Code is very clear and it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Roy that without giving any chance to the defence under section 246 (4) of the Code, the Court is not competent to produce prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. It is a settled principle of law that not only the accused should be given an opportunity of cross-examination but he should be given time enough to engage a lawyer for cross-examination. It is significant to not that sufficient time is to intervene between the dates on which the charge is framed and the date on which the accused is required to state as to whether he wishes to cross-examine any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution before framing of the charge. It is also an established principle of law that the accused has right to cross-examine the witnesses under section 246 of the Code. The evidence of the witnesses, examined before the charge is framed, should not be taken into consideration, if they could not be produced for cross-examination after framing of the charge. The decision cited by Mr. It is also an established principle of law that the accused has right to cross-examine the witnesses under section 246 of the Code. The evidence of the witnesses, examined before the charge is framed, should not be taken into consideration, if they could not be produced for cross-examination after framing of the charge. The decision cited by Mr. Roy virtually supports this settled principle of law. ( 9 ) FROM the copies of the orders produced before this Court in course of hearing and also annexed with the present application, the details of the orders passed after framing of the charge are not clear, and at the risk of repetition it must be stated that ultimately by the order dated 6. 2. 97, the trial Court directed all the accused persons to comply with the provision of section 246 (4) of the Code with a default clause that if the list is not produced, next date for further cross-examination of the P. W. 1 and other P. W. s would be fixed. So even if there was any gap or irregularity in the previous proceeding after the framing of charge, that was rectified or corrected by the subsequent order dated 6. 2. 97. So the accused persons would not be prejudiced at all inasmuch as they have been given opportunity to submit a list of witnesses to be produced for cross-examination. ( 10 ) THE next question is whether the Court is in duty bound to respect the order of production of the prosecution witnesses already examined in the manner given in the list of the defence. ( 11 ) MR. Roy made a forcible argument on this point and pointed out that the main object of section 246 (4) of the Code was to give the defence sufficient opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses in the order selected or specified by the defence. Though, it is not specifically indicated in section 246 (4) of the Code but this point was discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Moosa Haji Abdul Shakoor v. Emperor, reported in 34 Cr. L J 347. Though, it is not specifically indicated in section 246 (4) of the Code but this point was discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Moosa Haji Abdul Shakoor v. Emperor, reported in 34 Cr. L J 347. In this case, the defence gave a list of witnesses to be produced first for cross-examination before cross-examination of the complainant, but the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta (as the post then was) after assigning the reason was not disposed to remit the witnesses to be cross-examined in the order in which the accused desired. On the contrary, he insisted on the cross-examination of the complainant being taken first. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defence was willing to cross-examine the complainant on that date provided he was allowed to cross-examine the other witnesses then present in the Court before cross-examining the complainant. But the learned Magistrate did not allow this proposition. The Division Bench of this Court after giving due care to the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and also considering the provision of section 135 of the Evidence Act, came to a conclusion that the order in which the witnesses are to be cross-examined is solely at the discretion of the Court. Section 135 of the Evidence Act is quoted below : ?the order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and in the absence of any such law by the discretion of the Court. ? ( 12 ) SO, the order of the witnesses to be examined shall be regulated by law and practice for the time being in force relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively and in the absence of any such law by the discretion of the Court. Section 246 of the Code which deals with the procedure to be followed by the defence in a warrant case practically contains no provision as to the order in which the prosecution witnesses are to be cross-examined and it does not confer any such right upon the defence. But Their Lordships in the aforesaid decision ultimately took a view that the discretion of the Court should be exercised in favour of the defence and the order which the defence counsel desires, is to be maintained. But Their Lordships in the aforesaid decision ultimately took a view that the discretion of the Court should be exercised in favour of the defence and the order which the defence counsel desires, is to be maintained. ( 13 ) IN the present case, there are other accused persons and as such if the accused persons separately give separate lists indicating different order of production of such witnesses, it would be almost impracticable on the part of the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the defence. But if the defence is in a position to supply a common list giving the order of the witnesses to be examined, there would be no difficulty on the part of the Court to follow such order and in fact, it is in conformity with the spirit of the present section. But if different lists are produced giving different order of production of the witnesses for cross-examination, the trial Court shall be at liberty to exercise its own discretion as far as practicable respecting the order given in such lists. Since the cross-examination of the PW 1 is in progress, liberty shall be given to all the accused persons to conclude the cross-examination of the witness first, unless their is necessity to defer the cross-examination of the PW 1 till the cross-examination of the other witnesses in the same order jointly given by all the other accused persons in writing. If the accused persons are found to be not unanimous in selecting the order of production of the witnesses to be cross-examined the trial Court shall exercise its discretion in the manner indicated hereinabove. ( 14 ) AS regards the delay caused in this case and the prayer for dropping the entire proceeding it must be stated that the delay was caused mainly due to different steps taken by the defence at different stages and as such, there is no reason to drop this proceeding at this stage, specially when the charge was framed against the accused persons. ( 15 ) SO, after due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides and on perusal of the materials on records, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Court below and accordingly, I dispose of this application with the direction upon the learned Judge of the Special Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after fixing a specific date for supply of list and order of the witnesses to be cross-examined under the provision of section 246 (4) of the Code and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law and in the manner as indicated hereinabove. ( 16 ) IT is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of this case and accordingly, the trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed with this case without being influenced by this order excepting the direction contained in the body of this judgment. The application is thus disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Court below forthwith. Urgent xeroxed certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties, if applied for. Application disposed of