ORDER : This petition has been filed, seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in Cr. M.P. No. 320 of 2016 in S.C. No. 163 of 2014 dated 14.03.2016 and set aside the same. 2. The petitioners are facing trial in S.C. No. 163 of 2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 342, 307, 153A, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC. There are totally five accused and apart from these two petitioners, there are three other accused in the case. 3. It is seen that one Mr. G. Chandrasekhar, Advocate had filed memos of appearance for representing Prabhu @ Hamsa @ Abdul Azeez (A3) and Shaji (A5) before the Trial Court. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined in chief on 24.11.2015 and the witnesses were again present on 14.12.2015 and the counsel for A1, A2 and A4 cross examined them in full. Learned counsel for the petitioners, who was present in the Court, reported “No Cross” and the same has been recorded in the evidence. This is also reflected in the adjudication dated 14.12.2015. Under these circumstances, the petitioners herein filed an application in C.M.P. No. 320 of 2016 in S.C. No. 163 of 2014 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.Ws.1, 3 & 4 for the purpose of cross examination by the petitioners. The respondent police filed their counter seriously objecting to the prayer of the petitioners. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court by order dated 14.03.2016 dismissed C.M.P. 320 of 2016, challenging which, the accused are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused have a right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the denial of opportunity to recall the witnesses for the purpose of cross examination will offend this constitutional right. He also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56 in support of his contention. 5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 6. 5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 6. It is true that in Sanjeeva Rao's case (cited above), the Supreme Court has held that the accused should be given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, even if there is a delay. The said case relates to a trap that was laid by the Police against the accused, in which the prosecution examined in chief P.Ws.1 and 2, namely, the complainant and the trap witnesses and at that juncture, the accused filed an application for deferring the cross examination of P.Ws.1 & 2 till such time the trap laying witness P.W.11 was examined by the prosecution. It may be relevant to extract Paragraph No.13 in the said judgment as follows: “13. There is no dispute that no formal application was filed by the petitioner nor even an oral prayer made before the trial court to the effect that the exercise of the right to cross-examine the two witnesses was being reserved till such time the trap laying officer was examined. This is precisely where the counsel for the appellant has stepped in and filed a personal affidavit in which he has stated that even though there is no formal prayer made to that effect he intended to cross-examine the two witnesses only after the deposition of the trap laying officer was recorded. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we feel that the version given by the counsel may indeed be the true reason why the two witnesses were not cross-examined on the conclusion of their examination-in-chief. We say so primarily because no lawyer worth his salt especially one who had sufficient experience at the Bar like the one appearing for the appellant would have let the opportunity to cross examine go unavailed in a case where the witnesses had supported the prosecution version not only in regard to the demand of bribe but also its payment and the success of the trap laid for that purpose.” In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court was pleased to allow the prayer of the accused to recall P.Ws.1 & 2 for the purpose of cross-examination. 7. The facts in this case are different. 7. The facts in this case are different. When P.Ws.1, 3 & 4 were examined in chief, the counsel for the co-accused cross examined them extensively and the counsel for the petitioners reported “No Cross”. This practice is normal in Trial Courts, when tail end counsel will choose not to further cross examine a witness, who has been extensively cross examined by the lead counsel so that there is no contradiction in the defense case. Having adopted that strategy, it is not open to the petitioners now to recall P.Ws.1, 3 & 4. The Trial Court has clearly noted that there is a threat to the life of P.Ws.1, 3 & 4, which has also weighed in the mind of the Trial Court to reject the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. That apart, on reading of the petition in C.M.P. No. 320 of 2016 filed by the petitioners, they have not given any sound reasons for recalling the said witnesses. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the counsel for the accused in the Trial Court was not available, when the witnesses were examined in chief. This Court is unable to accept the submissions in the light of the finding of the Trial Court that the Trial Court counsel for the petitioners had reported “No Cross” for the purpose of cross examination by the lead counsel. That apart, in the proviso to Section 309 Cr.P.C., it is stated as follows:- “309(2)(b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment.” 9. The Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542 has given a direction that cross examination of witnesses should not be deferred as that may lead to tampering of evidence and following the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Registrar Judicial of Madras High Court has also issued a circular in R.O.C. No. 7808-A/2015/F1/Regr (Judl) to all the Trial Courts, directing to strictly follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in letter and spirit. Had the witnesses not been cross examined at all, as in Sanjeeva Rao's case, this Court would have given an opportunity to the petitioners to recall them. 10. Had the witnesses not been cross examined at all, as in Sanjeeva Rao's case, this Court would have given an opportunity to the petitioners to recall them. 10. In this case, as stated above, the witnesses have been extensively cross examined by the lead counsel and the counsel for the petitioners in the Trial Court reported “No Cross”. Thus, as discussed by the Trial Court, it is apparent that in order to prolong the trial, the accused are adopting such tactics. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.