JUDGMENT REIS F.M., J.:- 1. Heard Shri S. Shet, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appear­ing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Pub­lic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an Or­der dated 2.7.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., at Pernem, in Criminal Case No. 76/5/2010, whereby an application filed under section 311 of the Cri.P.C., came to dismissed. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that on account of inadvertence of the Advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the petitioners, some contradictions which had to be put to two witnesses namely PW.2, Usha Gadekar and PW.5, Dattaram Raut, were not put to such witnesses. Learned Counsel further pointed out that without putting such con­tradictions, the case of the petitioners would be gravely. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has dismissed the applica­tion only on the ground that the said Ad­vocate was appearing for the petitioners since the trial started. learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent, points out that he submits to the order of this Court. was appearing on behalf of the petitioners had filed the said application under section. 311 of the Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the allegations made in the application are deemed to have been accepted by the said Advocate. Considering that the Advocate has made mutation mischievously. 6. I have considered the submissions of protection not available under section 197 of the learned Counsel and I have also gone Cri.P.C.-Sessions Court held procedure not through the records. It is pointed out by the followed for effecting mutation hence this learned Counsel that the same Advocate who criminal application-Held, revenue appropriate, in the interest of justice, to di­rect the recall of the witnesses namely PW.2, Usha Gadekar and PW. 5, Dattaram Raut for further cross-examination. No doubt, such exercise would be at the costs of the petitioners. 7. It is pointed out by the followed for effecting mutation hence this learned Counsel that the same Advocate who criminal application-Held, revenue appropriate, in the interest of justice, to di­rect the recall of the witnesses namely PW.2, Usha Gadekar and PW. 5, Dattaram Raut for further cross-examination. No doubt, such exercise would be at the costs of the petitioners. 7. In view of the above, the impugned Or­der dated 2.7.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 76/5/2010, is quashed and set aside, The petitioners are permitted to further cross-examine PW.2, Usha Gadekar and PW.5, Dattaram Raut, as prayed for at the costs of the petitioners, in accordance with Law. 8. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.