JUDGMENT 1. Both applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2019 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, District-Rewa in Sessions Trial No. 274/2017, whereby the right to cross examination of the applicants was closed by the trial Court. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, is that S.T.No.274/2017 is pending against both the applicants. Both the applicants are arrayed in sessions trial as accused. This sessions trial is pending since 2017 and fixed for the examination of prosecution witnesses. 3. The case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 19.12.2019. Witness Pranay Saxena, who is the victim was present in the Court and the Court examined the witness. One of the co-accused, namely Avinash, cross-examined the witness. Both the applicants along with their counsel was present in the Court, but not cross-examined the witness, infact they tried to adjourned the case. The witness was sitting since 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., but the counsel Brijesh Gupta appearing on behalf of both the applicants prayed for time on the ground that senior counsel is not present. 4. Learned trial Court after providing proper opportunity for cross-examination, closed the right of opportunity of crossexamination and proceeded further. 5. Counsel being aggrieved by that closing of his right of opportunity to cross-examination, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that applicants are having substantial right to cross-examine the witness. Learned trial Court erred in not providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The applicants should have been permitted to cross-examine the witness. Counsel Brijesh Gupta had made a prayer before the trial Court that senior counsel is not available to cross-examine his witness, but the trial Court closed the opportunity, therefore, he prays to set aside the order and allow both the applicants to cross-examine the witness Pranay Saxena. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the application and submits that learned trial Court provided ample of time for cross-examination of the witness but applicants not cross-examined the witness. Trial is pending since 2017, hence, learned trial Court had not committed any error in closing the right of cross-examination. 7. Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and deposition sheet. Trial is pending since 2017, hence, learned trial Court had not committed any error in closing the right of cross-examination. 7. Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and deposition sheet. Witness Pranay Saxena (PW-1) appeared before the Court on 19.12.2019 and he has been examined by the prosecution. After recording the examination of chief, one of the co-accused person Avinash Pandey, cross-examined the witness. But despite of this, both applicants even though present in the court not cross-examined the witness and their counsel tried to adjourned the case. It is also reflected from deposition sheet that witness Pranay Saxena was present from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., but neither both applicants themselves nor any counsel cross-examined the witness. Counsel Brijesh Gupta, appeared but did not cross-examined this witness and prayed for adjournment on the ground that senior counsel is not available. 8 . Considering the Legal aspects of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- S. 309. (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 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D 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. Provided also that - (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party; (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment; (c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be. After going through the proviso of Sub section (2) of section 309 of the Cr.P.C., it transpires that it is a directory provision. When witness appeared in the witness box, examinationin- chief has been recorded and one of the co-accused person crossexamined the witness, the witnesses should have been crossexamined by the applicants or by his counsel. The counsel appeared on behalf of both applicants Brijesh Gupta, instead of cross examining the witness, prayed for adjournment on the ground that senior counsel is not present. 9. Perused the proviso, which has been amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 by Section 21(b) enforceable with effect from 01.11.2010. The counsel appeared on behalf of both applicants Brijesh Gupta, instead of cross examining the witness, prayed for adjournment on the ground that senior counsel is not present. 9. Perused the proviso, which has been amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 by Section 21(b) enforceable with effect from 01.11.2010. In sub-section (b), there is clearly mentioned that pleader of the party engaged in another Court shall not be a ground for adjournment and in sub-section (c) of the proviso it is total discretion of the Court, if pleader appeared on behalf of the accused and prays for the adjournment. But in this case, pleader made a prayer on the ground that senior counsel is not present. In District Court, there is no classification of senior Lawyer and junior Lawyer, every engaged Lawyer is expected to act on behalf of the litigants. 10. In these circumstances and a directory provisions engrafted in Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., this Court finds that because the Sessions case is pending since 2017 and witness appeared on 19.12.2019 and both the applicants are having ample opportunities for cross-examining the witness but they have not availed that opportunity. Learned trial Court after closing the opportunity of cross-examination, proceeded further. In this way, for the speedy disposal of the case, this Court finds that learned trial Court had not committed any error. Hence, this Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent powers. 11. Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.