JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 27.08.2019 whereby, cross-examination of the prosecutrix was closed and the matter was fixed for recording of the explanation of accused. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appearing on all the dates before the Trial Court. On 27.08.2019, counsel for the petitioner was busy in some other Court and the Court has closed the cross-examination. 3. I have considered the contentions and have perused the reason assigned by the Court for closing the cross-examination. 4. Court has specifically mentioned that the witness was present in the Court right from 10:00 a.m. and remained present till 4:00 p.m. Accused was also present in the Court but he did not care to call his Advocate in the Court. Counsel for the accused was informed by the Court staff to appear and cross-examine the prosecutrix but on account of being busy, he did not turn up before the Court. 5. Absence of counsel for the accused cannot be considered to be a good ground, in view of the proviso under clause (2) of Section 309 of Cr.P.C., wherein it is specifically provided that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons. 6. A proviso was also inserted to Sub-clause (2) in the year 2009. As per which, the fact of the pleader of a party being engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment. 7. There being a specific provision and also taking note of the fact that effort was made by the Court to call the counsel to cross examine the witness, who was a rape victim, there appears to be no error in order of the Court in closing cross-examination. 8. Accordingly, the misc. petition is dismissed. Stay application stands disposed of.