ORDER : This petition has been filed seeking to to set aside the order in C.M.P.No.7781 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur dated 27.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State. 3. The petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sections 279 and 304(a) IPC in C.C.No.179 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Karur. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 on various dates and the accused did not choose to cross examine the witnesses. At the close of the prosecution case, the accused filed an application C.M.P.No.7781 of 2015 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recaIl of the prosecution witnesses, which was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.01.2016, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542 and the circular issued by the Registrar Judicial of Madras High Court in R.O.C.No.7808-A/2015/F1/Regr (Judl). 4. It is seen that this petitioner has been adopting dilatory tactics by not cross examining the prosecution witnesses with the intention of tiring them out and making them turn hostile. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on account of the absence of the counsel for the petitioner / accused in the Trial Court, the witnesses could not be cross examined. Section 309 Cr.P.C. clearly states as follows: “309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. (1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under Section 376, Section 376-A, Section 376B, Section 376-C or Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall, as far as possible be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet. (2) If the court after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time: Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for, special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.” 6. In view of the aforesaid provisions, absence of the counsel can be of no reason to adjourn a case. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that at least some of the witnesses may be permitted to be recalled for the purpose of cross examination and that the petitioner will pay costs, lest serious prejudice should befall. 7. Taking into consideration the plea, this Court is of the view that if the final judgment has not been delivered by the Trial Court as on the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Trial Court is directed to recall K.Karuppannan (P.W.1), S.Raja (P.W.4), Jeganathan (P.W.5), Eswaramoorthy (P.W.6) and J.Arulmozhi Arasu (Inspector of Police) on the following conditions: (a) If any of the witnesses are either dead or not available or incapable of giving evidence, they need not be recalled and the Trial Court shall proceed to decide the case based on the chief examination itself. On the appearance of the witnesses on the date fixed by the Trial Court, the petitioner / accused shall give them Rs.500/-each as cost before they get into the witness box for cross examination; (b) During cross examination, if any witness gives evidence contradicting the evidence given in chief, it is open to the Trial Court to infer that the said witness has been won over and reliance can be placed on the chief examination as done by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Nayan Kumar Shivappa Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015 (2) Scale 330 . The Trial Court shall also bear in mind that Section 154 of the Evidence Act has been amended, whereby the evidence of hostile witnesses need not be eschewed and those portions of the evidence, which supports the prosecution case, can be relied upon by the Court. (c) The Trial Court is directed to complete the exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the accused adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court for remanding him to custody under Section 309 Cr.P.C., as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667 . With the above observation, this petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.