Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC, the accused-petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Jayal, district Nagaur (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 259/2004, by which the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner for allowing cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. 2. The accused-petitioners are facing trial for the offence under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 326/149, IPC. The allegation against them is that armed with weapons, they entered into the house of the complainant-party and gave beatings to the members of the complainant party, as a result of which Smt. Rami Devi, Champa Lal and other persons sustained injuries. A cross case was lodged by petitioner Smt. Kishani stating therein that Narayan, Govind, Champa Lal, Naina, Chetan and other persons gave beatings to her and Smt. Pushpa and snatched money and wrist watch. Challan has also been filed against these members of the complainant party under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 149, IPC. On 06.07.2004, the trial Court framed charges against the present petitioners. As the petitioners wanted to challenge the order dated 06.07.2004 framing charges against them, they took away the file from their Counsel before the trial Court. On 20.11.2004, the trial Court recorded the statement of PW. 1 Champa Lal, PW 2 Narayan Ram, PW. 3 Nemi Chand and PW. 4 Dalu Ram. At that time, Counsel for the petitioners moved an application seeking time for cross-examination of these witnesses on the ground that the petitioners had taken away the file for filing revision petition before higher Court against the order framing charge and there are every chances of compromise between the parties because of cross-case filed against the members of the complainant party. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 20.11.2004 dismissed the application. 3. Explanation 2 to Section 309, CrPC reads as under:- "The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate case, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused." 4. The trial Court, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, deprived the petitioners from cross-examining the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 3. Explanation 2 to Section 309, CrPC reads as under:- "The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate case, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused." 4. The trial Court, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, deprived the petitioners from cross-examining the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. When Counsel for the petitioners moved the application seeking adjournment on the ground of taking away the file by the petitioners from him for challenging the order framing charge and further made an averment regarding chances of compromise between the parties on account of cross-cases, in these circumstances, the trial Court normally should have granted adjournment and postpone the case for cross-examination taking care of prosecution witnesses by compensating them with the cost as envisaged under Section 309, Explanation 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 20.11.2004 is liable to be set aside. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.11.2004 is set-aside and it is directed that the prosecution shall produce PW.1 Chmapa Lal, PW. 2 Narayan Ram, PW. 3 Nemi Chand and PW. 4 Dalu Ram on the next date of hearing for cross-examination. Petitioners shall cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses on the very day of their presence before the trial Court. Petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 200/-to each of the above-named prosecution witnesses. The stay petition stands disposed of