JUDGMENT : 1. - The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 4.4.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer camp Beawar in Sessions Case No. 9/2004 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination. 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner is facing trial on charge for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code before the learned court below. He moved an application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code on 4.4.2005 before the learned trial court stating therein that two eye-witnesses namely Shanker PW6 and Basanta PW7 could not be cross examined on the dates fixed for their cross examination because the learned counsel who was conducting the trial on his behalf was suffering from acute diarrhea and could not appear in Court. The said application was declined by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition. 3. His learned counsel has contended that the learned trial court did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons for the absence of his learned counsel. The petitioner is in judicial custody and is facing trial for a serious offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The principles of natural justice require that the accused should be afforded proper opportunity of cross-examination of the main eye-witness. In this regard, he has referred to the cases of Indal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 WLC (Raj.) UC 86 and Lalit Bagrecha v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 81. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the order of the learned Court below. He has submitted that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and the impugned order is well reasoned which calls for no interference by this Court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the relevant record as well as the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In Indal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the witnesses could not be cross-examined as the learned counsel for the accused was not present. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the relevant record as well as the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In Indal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the witnesses could not be cross-examined as the learned counsel for the accused was not present. An application was moved on behalf of the accused petitioners for recalling the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, but the application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. This Court observed that a party should not be punished for the fault of his counsel and, therefore, an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses was directed to be provided in the interest of justice. 7. In Lalit Bagrecha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) it was held that no doubt the power under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code lies in the Court, but where the evidence of any person appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, the court is duty bound to summon and examine such a witness. In that case, the court had not recorded any finding that evidence of the witnesses was essential or not to the just decision of the case. So, the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. 8. In the instant case, Shanker PW6 and Basanta PW7 could not be cross examined on the date fixed for their cross-examination for the reason that the learned counsel conducting the trial on behalf of the accused-petitioner was suffering from acute diarrhea on that day. The accused is facing trial on a serious charge of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. He cannot be made to suffer for the inability of his learned counsel to appear in Court due to his illness and to cross-examine the above witnesses. It is not disputed that the aforesaid two witnesses are eye-witnesses in the case. Affording opportunity of cross-examination to the accused-petitioner from these witnesses is not only fair and just, but is also required to be afforded for securing the ends of justice. The order declining to afford opportunity to the accused- petitioner for cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses is not sustainable. Another counsel who had no file and was not prepared to cross- examine the witnesses cannot be ground to refuse to afford an opportunity of cross-examination to the accused. 9. The order declining to afford opportunity to the accused- petitioner for cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses is not sustainable. Another counsel who had no file and was not prepared to cross- examine the witnesses cannot be ground to refuse to afford an opportunity of cross-examination to the accused. 9. In this view of the matter, therefore, I deem it just and proper to afford one opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the aforesaid two witnesses namely, Shanker PW6 and Vasanta PW7 who are said to be eye witnesses in the case. 10. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.4.2005 passed by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2A camp Beawar is set aside. The application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code on 4.4.2005 is allowed and it is directed that the aforesaid two witnesses shall be recalled for cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. However, it is made clear that once these witnesses are recalled and appear for cross-examination, it shall be the responsibility of the accused-petitioner to get them cross-examined by his learned counsel on the same day. In case, his learned counsel fails or avoids to cross-examine the above witnesses, no further opportunity shall be required to be afforded for recalling these witnesses for cross-examination. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed *******