JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—In S.T. No. 389 of 2005 (State Vs. Babloo) under Section 302 I.P.C., pending in Fast Track Court No. V, Jaunpur, the counsel for the accused had been examining the Investigating Officer, P.W.7, Anil Chandra Tiwari for 5 days. The Trial Sessions Judge, got fed-up, and closed the cross-examination because he was of the view, that irrelevant and unnecessary questions are being asked, and the cross-examination has gone on, for too long. 2. The accused has come up to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. protesting against the closure of cross examination. 3. I have Heard Sri D.N. Yadav, counsel for the applicant and Sri R.D. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. What has happened here is a common malice, and a source of constant friction, between the presiding judge and the defence advocate. Lawyers are some times, inclined to linger the cross examination endlessly, some times with a view to harass the witness and in the process the poor judge is also harassed. 5. Our procedure code provides no time limit or specific guidelines about restricting cross examination by advocates. 6. That is a deficiency which needs to be rectified though none of the Law Commission has paid attention to this aspect. 7. In certain other countries, there is a procedure for allotting a time limit, for the lawyer, to cross examine the witness. In the U.S.A., for instance, the judge allots time to the concerned advocate for cross examination. If the advocate exceeds the time limit, a Read Bulb lights up, warning him that his time is over, and if he does not stop, even then, mikes are cut out. We have nothing of the short here. 8. The attitude of the superior courts hitherto has been one of granting maximum latitude to lawyers for cross-examination, and the result is that, the disposal of cases is delayed, and unnecessary and inadmissible material infiltrates into the record. It is appalling that the investigating officer has been subjected to a grueling cross examination for 5 days, and the appetite to ask questions continuous unabated. 9. The investigating officer is not a witness of fact, and major part of his testimony is formal in nature subjecting him to such prolong cross examination is an abuse of the process of Court. The trial court was, therefore, not unjustified in closing the cross examination. 10. 9. The investigating officer is not a witness of fact, and major part of his testimony is formal in nature subjecting him to such prolong cross examination is an abuse of the process of Court. The trial court was, therefore, not unjustified in closing the cross examination. 10. However, the counsel for the accused has given an undertaking that one more opportunity be granted, for cross examining the investigating officer, because some more questions about recovery etc. have to be asked. We seem, therefore, inclined to give one more opportunity to the counsel for the applicant, but we would direct that the cross-examination be restricted to 60 minutes. 11. The petition is, therefore, allowed, to the extent that the Trial Judge will allow the counsel for the accused to cross examine the investigating officer for one hour more, and will close the cross examination, after 60 minutes. Revision Allowed. ———