JUDGMENT : Appellants, who have been convicted by learned Second Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and seven years with fine respectively, challenge their conviction and sentence by present appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that, in this case, the counsel for the accused before the trial Court did not appear when the victim and principal eye witnesses were examined by the Court. The application made by the accused for adjournment vide Exh.20 on 20th September, 2003 was also rejected by the learned trial Judge and he proceeded to record evidence of the witnesses and asked the accused to cross-examine the witnesses. On 11.03.2004 application Exh.57 was filed for recall of the witnesses. On 20.03.2004 necessary diet money was deposited. On 16.04.2004 witnesses were present but the learned counsel for the accused before the trial Court again ducked, hence, the witnesses were discharged. When the counsel filed application Exh.69 on 18.05.2004 for recall, the learned trial Judge justifiably rejected that application and revision preferred by the appellant against such rejection bearing Criminal Revision No.78 of 2004 was dismissed again for default of the Advocate. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellants states that his clients who are put in jail for ten and seven years respectively and are still in jail should be at least given a fair trial and an opportunity to cross-examine the principal eye witnesses. He submitted that under Section 304 of the Code, in a sessions trial, when an accused is not represented by pleader it would be the duty of the Court to assign a pleader for defence of the accused. He admitted that the accused were represented by a pleader, who, however, made himself scarce from the Court at the material time and therefore, whatever may have been the lapse on account of absence of the learned counsel, the consequences, namely, the appellants being sentenced to long periods of imprisonment, are not justified. 3. Appellant No.1 is on bail and appellant No.2 is in jail from the date of judgment i.e. 17.09.2004, almost for two years now. 3. Appellant No.1 is on bail and appellant No.2 is in jail from the date of judgment i.e. 17.09.2004, almost for two years now. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also agrees that if the trial Judge is directed to expeditiously complete cross-examination of the witnesses, rehear the prosecutor and defence counsel and decide the case afresh it would meet the ends of justice. 4. In view of this, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the two appellants are set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to summon P.W. Nos. 1 to 7 and 12 for being cross-examined, within two weeks of receipt of the record. Should, for any reason, any witness untraceable, the appellants take risk of such witness not being cross-examined. After completing recording of cross-examination, within two weeks therefrom, the learned trial Judge shall hear arguments and conclude his judgment within five weeks from receipt of the record. Appellant No.1, who is on bail, shall furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court within two weeks of this order, failing which the trial Court shall be at liberty to have appellant No.1 arrested and remanded. The learned counsel for the appellants assures that he will not remain absent before the trial Court on all the dates on which the matter may now come up for hearing and shall not take any adjournment. If the prosecution seeks adjournment, time shall be correspondingly extended, but not beyond two weeks.