JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Parcha filed by Sri Shivam Yadav, Adv. on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 4.7.2014 and 10.07.2014 whereby the learned court below has recalled P.W. 9 SI Sudhakar Mishra after rejecting two recall applications and after closing the evidence of P.W.9 on 22.3.2014. Further to stay the entire proceeding of case no. 10596 of 2009, under Section 409 I.P.C. P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that complaint is of the year 2009. More than sufficient time was allowed to the prosecution to examine the witnesses earlier. Since PW-9, failed to appear hence evidence was closed. Further on 4.7.2014, learned Trial Court observed to recall PW-9, S.I. Sudhakar Mishra, and granted time to trace out the constable Uadi Prakash, who was the writer of the F.I.R. though there was no application on behalf of the prosecution. He further contended that twice the application for recall of the witnesses PW-9 was rejected. Subsequently, the application was moved on 10.7.2014, whereas order had already been passed on 4.7.2014, to recall the PW-9 without application moved from the prosecution. He also contended that out of 49 documents only two original documents were produced and photocopies of remaining documents were produced without following the provision of the Evidence Act and without any reliable material to show that original documents were missing. However those have been permitted to be exhibited which is against the provisions. Further no proper opportunity was given for cross-examination of the defence witness. Now 11.08.2014 has been fixed as the date for Judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, opposed the prayer and contended that there was direction of the High Court to dispose off the case preferably within six months, but the applicant purposely wants to delay the proceeding of the case, which was supposed to be concluded by the Trial Court till March, 2014, as per direction of the High Court. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the period of six month has already expired on 16th March, 2014 and, on 4.7.2014 without application the witness PW-9, was recalled to be examined though earlier twice his application was rejected. Hence the trial court was not serious to decide the case expeditiously. 6. Considered the submissions. In view of the facts, it appears that without any application on 4.7.2014, witness PW-9, was recalled though earlier twice his application was rejected by the Trial Court. Subsequently, formal application was given on 10.7.2014. Now the statement has already been recorded, hence at least opportunity has to be given to the applicant for cross-examination of PW-9 and to produce the defence witness. Hence, the order dated 4.7.2014 and 10.7.2014 shall stand cancelled and opportunity has to be provided for cross examination and to provide defence witness. Further if objection is filed against the admission of 47 photocopies, instead of original documents that will also be considered and decided by the Trial Court by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. With these observations, present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off. Let a copy of this order be provided to learned counsel for the applicant today on payment of usual charges.