JUDGMENT 1. - By this Criminal Misc. Petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the trial court so as the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the revisional court. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling the witness for cross-examination was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without a proper and fair opportunity to defend, right of the accused petitioner to cross examine the witness was closed. If the facts of the case are looked into, it will come out that after reading of substance of accusation in the year 2009, an affidavit of the complainant was filed and was kept for cross examination on 28.1.2010. On the same day, right of cross examination was closed in absence of the petitioner and his counsel. An application was submitted to recall the witness but it has been dismissed. Reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court has been given. Therein, it was held that a fair opportunity should be given to cross examine a witness, failing which, it may result in conviction. A prayer is accordingly made to allow the application and permit the petitioner to cross examine the witness. 3. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 4. A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed in the month of January, 2006. A period of 9 years has already passed by now. On 10.12.2009, substance of accusation was read over after securing presence of the accused petitioner. Immediately on the next date, an affidavit was filed and a further date was given i.e. 28.1.2010 for cross examination of the witness. The petitioner did not appear to cross examine the witness thus the court was left with no option but to close the cross examination. If the facts aforesaid are considered alone, definitely, chance of cross examination was closed on the first date itself thus the witness should have been recalled. However, further events are relevant. The petitioner failed to appear before the court on 17.2.2010 thus his bail bonds were forfeited. He did not appear before the court for more than two and half years. The appearance was made before the court on 14.11.2013. However, further events are relevant. The petitioner failed to appear before the court on 17.2.2010 thus his bail bonds were forfeited. He did not appear before the court for more than two and half years. The appearance was made before the court on 14.11.2013. These facts are relevant for the reason that an application under section 311 Cr.P.C is belated and shows intention of the accused petitioner to delay the proceedings. 5. The position of fact could have been different if such an application would have been filed immediately after closure of chance of the petitioner to cross examine the witness. In the name of right to cross examine, courts should not promote delaying tactics in adjudication of the case. The courts are blamed for delay in disposal of the cases. The liberty to get the chance to cross examine can be given when act of the accused is bona fide and not when he had deliberately absconded from the proceedings. His presence could be secured after more than two and half years. The legislature, while bringing the amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 thought it proper to provide duration for disposal of the complaint. If we go in the objects, the practise evolved by the petitioner in the instant case needs to be deprecated. 6. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court have been referred but, on facts, they are distinguishable. In view of above, no help can be extended to the petitioner in reference to those judgments. 7. In view of discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. Hence, petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******