ORDER : Heard Mr. Parth S. A. Swaroop Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 12.08.2015 passed in Gamharia P. S. Case No. 96 of 2008 by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. A First Information Report has been instituted wherein it has been stated that on 28.12.2008 when the informant had returned from work he saw his mother lying on a cot and the neighbor were giving oil massage to her. On query the informant could come to know that the petitioner had assaulted his mother and in course of treatment she died at 10:00 P.M. in the night. 4. Upon investigation, the Police having found the case to be true submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/448 of the Indian Penal Code. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions charge was framed against the petitioner on 06.01.2009 and thereafter in course of trial on 05.07.2010 and 21.07.2010 four prosecution witnesses were examined and were discharged. An application was preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall and re-examination of the four witnesses as the petitioner was prevented from cross-examining the witnesses through his lawyer on account of the lawyer of Bar abstaining from work. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's legal right to cross-examine the witnesses through his lawyer was extinguished on account of the on going abstainment from the work in the Bar and this fact has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court while refusing to entertain the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has supported the impugned order dated 12.08.2015. 7. It appears from the evidence of the prosecution that on account of the call for abstaining work by the Bar Association the same prevented the petitioner from cross-examining such witnesses through his lawyer. It further appears that no opportunity was given by the learned trial court to the petitioner to provide him with an Amicus Curiae and the petitioner virtually had to resort to cross-examining the witnesses himself which could be considered to be highly pre-judicial to the case of the petitioner. It further appears that no opportunity was given by the learned trial court to the petitioner to provide him with an Amicus Curiae and the petitioner virtually had to resort to cross-examining the witnesses himself which could be considered to be highly pre-judicial to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner did not have any choice except to cross-examine the witnesses himself and in absence of having expertise in such cross-examination his valuable right has been extinguished. The abstainment of lawyers was not a sufficiently justifiable reason for the learned trial court to have rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is a valuable right of the accused which should not be in a perfunctory manner be forfeited unless there are compelling circumstances justifying the same. The petitioner on account of the non-attendance of the lawyers due to the call for abstainment given by the Bar and in absence of the learned trial court taking steps for appointing an Amicus Curiae the petitioner did not have any choice but to cross-examine the witnesses which led to forfeiture of his valuable right. The learned trial court did not consider these aspects of the matter while refusing to entertain the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the circumstance enumerated above, the impugned order dated 12.08.2015 passed in Gamharia P. S. Case No. 96 of 2008 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the learned trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the four prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 to 4 through his lawyer which exercise should be completed expeditiously.