ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioners only seek an opportunity to cross-examine one witness, who could not be cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner on 23.1.2012 because his advocate was out of station. An application was moved by the petitioner on 2nd day itself i.e. on 24.1.2012 seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the witness as he could not be cross-examined earlier by his counsel. It is stated in the application that cross-examination could not be conducted because the counsel had gone out. 2. Trial Judge, however, dismissed the application by the impugned order dated 23.1.12. The trial has proceeded on the assumption that cross-examination of the witness was complete as he was cross-examined by the other counsel who was appearing for other accused persons. 3. It is well settled that in such a serious offence, whereby the petitioners can be convicted under section 302 IPC, the interest of justice requires that proper opportunity must be granted to petitioner to cross-examine the witness. Merely because the counsel could not cross-examine on a date fixed because he had to go out, it would not be in the interest of justice to close the opportunity once the application has been moved. Thus, on the second day the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioners to complete cross-examination. 4. This is also view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India reported in 1991 Cr.L.R. (SC) 286. 5. Petitioners would inform the trial Judge of the order passed today. The trial Judge will fix next date of hearing for cross-examination of the witnesses whose examination-in-chief was recorded on 23.1.12 for their cross examination on a date as may be fixed.