JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate, for the applicant. 2. Mr. R.K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Brief facts of the case are that present applicant is an accused in a Criminal Case No. 325 of 2009. The examination-in-chief of P.W.1 – Kundan Singh was done on 25.05.2012 and on the application of the applicant/accused the matter was adjourned to 15.06.2012 for cross examination. The cross-examination was not done on 15.06.2012. Thereafter, the applicant/accused was granted sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2. Since the applicant/accused failed to avail that opportunity, the trial court closed the opportunity to cross examine these witnesses vide order dated 05.08.2013. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a revision before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Almora, which was ultimately dismissed by the revisional court. Thereafter, the trial proceeded against the present applicant and he has been convicted under Sections 279/304A of IPC and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 of IPC and for one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304A of IPC with default stipulation. Aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal against the order of the trial court, which is pending before the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Ranikhet, Almora. 4. During the pendency of the above appeal, the applicant moved an application under Section 391 CrPC read with Section 311 CrPC for cross-examining the PW1 & PW2. The said application was moved without assigning any reason and moreover, the applicant has also mentioned therein that the trial court already dismissed the above prayer of the applicant during the course of trial. This application has been rejected by the appellate court vide its order dated 10.08.2015. 5. The appellate court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant as earlier when the applicant’s opportunity was closed by the trial court he had filed a revision against it which was dismissed. Hence, the matter has reached its finality. 6. At the appellate stage, the applicant has again re-agitated the same issue without assigning any reasons. 7. There is no occasion to interfere in the matter. The application under Section 482 CrPC is hereby dismissed. 8. Hence, the matter has reached its finality. 6. At the appellate stage, the applicant has again re-agitated the same issue without assigning any reasons. 7. There is no occasion to interfere in the matter. The application under Section 482 CrPC is hereby dismissed. 8. However, it is made clear that the appeal be disposed of as expeditiously as possible without granting any undue adjournments to any of the parties.