ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records. 2. There is no need to issue any notice to the respondent herein, as this court is concurring with the order passed by the trial Court and no adverse order being passed against the respondent herein. It appears the accused has filed an application u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. dated 31.3.2017 seeking indulgence of the trial court to permit the accused to further cross examine the complainant. The trial Court has dismissed the said application after contest, on the ground that, the application is bald and the said application does not contain any proper grounds for considering the same. Except stating in the application that, there would be failure of justice if the additional cross examination is not permitted, no other grounds are urged. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate was called in question before the Revisional II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl. Rev. Petition No.87/2017. The learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge was also of the same opinion and dismissed the Revision Petition as groundless. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner before this court strenuously contended that though no grounds have been alleged or urged in the application, the entire surrounding circumstance should have been seen by the trial Court. But in my opinion, the arguments that have been addressed before the trial Court making out a ground for considering the application is not made known to this court. 4. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, when the application itself is bald and it does not disclose any ground for allowing the application, I do not find any strong reasons to differ from the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge. However, the doors of the court is not completely closed so far as the accused is concerned. It is the fundamental duty of the court to adjudicate the rights of the parties in accordance with law with all care and scrutiny. District and Sessions Judge. However, the doors of the court is not completely closed so far as the accused is concerned. It is the fundamental duty of the court to adjudicate the rights of the parties in accordance with law with all care and scrutiny. If the accused has got sound ground for cross examination of PW1, he has to narrate the specific grounds on which he would like to cross examine the witness and if the court finds those grounds are valid and genuine, and the same is necessary for proper adjudication of the rights of the parties, there is no bar for the trial court to consider the prayer of the accused to cross examine the witnesses so as to afford reasonable opportunity to the accused. Fair play and principles of natural justice demand that such powers should be exercised by the court as and when required, Judiciously. 5. Under the above said circumstances, if the matter is still pending before the trial Court, the accused is at liberty to make once again the application making sufficient grounds for cross examination of PW1, if the trial Court is convinced with regard to the grounds urged by the accused without being influenced by the earlier order, the court has to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.