Bala Krishna Narayana, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned order. 2. The grievance of the applicant who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. in S.T. No.473 of 2007, State Vs. Deepu and others pending before Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Etah was not given any opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.2 as he was in jail and he could not engage any counsel and accordingly he moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 so that his counsel may cross-examine. However, the said application has been rejected by the court below upon wholly extraneous consideration without recording any finding on the issue raised by the applicant that he was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.2. 3. After going through the impugned order, I find that the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant has force. From the record it transpires that the vakalatnama which was purported to have been filed on behalf of the applicant was rejected on the ground that it did not bear his signature and hence, the counsel was not permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.2. 4. In case the impugned order is allowed to stand the same will result in miscarriage of justice and will deprive the applicant from cross-examining P.W.1 and P.W.2. 5. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The order dated 26.3.2011 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah is set aside. The learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah is directed to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 Vikas Babu and Priyanka and shall permit the applicant to cross-examine them. The necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed by him within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.