Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J. - 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 22.5.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.4, Budaun in S.T. No.444 of 2007, State Vs. Himmat & others under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Bisauli, District Budaun whereby the application 71 kha of the revisionists for recalling PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 & PW-8 for cross-examination was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that earlier PW-1 Smt. Shanti Devi, PW-2 Dr. Harpal Singh, PW-6 Jaagan Singh and PW-8 Dr. Anita could not be cross-examined and the opportunity for cross-examination was closed and one opportunity should have been granted to the revisionists-accused for cross-examination. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order. 3. The application for recall of the witnesses was rejected by the trial court on the ground that PW-1 was examined on 13.7.2007, but counsel for the defence moved adjournment application. Even on adjourned date, cross-examination was not conducted and opportunity was closed. Similarly, PW-2 was examined-in-chief on 26.9.2007, but he was also not cross-examined despite sufficient opportunity. The opportunity for cross-examination of PW-6 has not yet been closed, but PW-8 was also not cross-examined despite sufficient opportunity. 4. From the impugned order, it transpires that the conduct of the revisionists has been most reprehensible during the trial. Despite opportunities being given, they failed to avail the same and sought adjournments after adjournments. Closing the opportunity for cross-examination is not a solution of this problem. If the accused were misusing the liberty of bail and were not cooperating in the due progress of the case and failed to cross-examine the witnesses despite sufficient opportunity, it would have been proper to cancel their bail instead of closing the opportunity of cross-examination. Closing the opportunity for cross-examination can not be justified, as no one should be condemned unheard. In my considered opinion, one more opportunity should be granted to the revisionist to cross-examine PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 & PW-8 subject to their depositing the amount of cost imposed by the trial court from time to time. 5. Criminal Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.5.2010 is set-aside. In my considered opinion, one more opportunity should be granted to the revisionist to cross-examine PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 & PW-8 subject to their depositing the amount of cost imposed by the trial court from time to time. 5. Criminal Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.5.2010 is set-aside. If the revisionists-accused deposit the whole amount of cost, imposed by the trial court from time to time, within a period of four weeks from today, they shall be afforded an opportunity by the trial court to cross-examine PW-1 Smt. Shanti Devi, PW-2 Dr. Harpal Singh, PW-6 Jaagan Singh and PW-8 Dr. Anita, who have not yet been cross-examined.