ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the parties are heard through video conferencing. 2. The instant petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner/complainant (who is the father of the deceased in Crime No. 95/2016 registered at P.S. Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior -- matured into S.S.T. No.27/2016) invoking inherent powers of the Court seeks direction for expeditious conclusion of the trial in S.S.T. No.27/2016 pending before the trial Court. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that due to dilatory tactics adopted by the defence, the trial is lingering since last several years as repeated adjournments have been sought and granted in favour of the defence to cross-examine several PWs whose examination-in-chief have been recorded long time back. Shri Pateriya informs that eye witness Mangal was subjected to examination-in-chief as early as on 18.07.2019. The other PWs Shivam, Anil and Lal Singh were also subjected to examination-in-chief but their cross examinations have een postponed for reasons solely attributable to the defence, since last three years. 4. In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for direction for expeditious conclusion of S.S.T. No.27/2016 within three months. 5. This Court may remind the learned trial Judge that adjourning matters after partly recording evidence of a witness exposes that witness to nefarious tactics of defence of wining over the witness during the interregnum period between the part recording of deposition and recording of the remaining deposition. 6. Accused, in our criminal dispensation system are often interested in delaying the trial to buy time to brow beat the PWs to compel them from resiling from their earlier stand. 7. To achieve this, PWs are often subjected to fear and favour. The repeated adjournment adds to the miseries. PWs owing to their humble background, lack of education, weakness of moral fiber and last but not the least the unsupportive -- callous governmental machinery, succumb to the pressure exerted by the defence. 8. Learned trial Court ought to remember that any kind of adjournment after part recording of deposition exposes the said pressures. The trial Court ought not to become a party to the said nefarious designs of the defence. There may be occasions where witnesses have to be sent back after part-recording of deposition to be recalled for recording of remaining deposition for reasons beyond the control of the trial Court but such occasions should be to the minimum. The trial Court ought not to become a party to the said nefarious designs of the defence. There may be occasions where witnesses have to be sent back after part-recording of deposition to be recalled for recording of remaining deposition for reasons beyond the control of the trial Court but such occasions should be to the minimum. If such exceptional circumstances of adjournment arises, the learned trial Judge should ensure extension of adequate protection to the witness as per witness protection scheme formulated by the apex Court in (2019) 14 SCC 615 . Moreso, the learned trial Judge should also ensure that the time gap between the part recording of deposition and recording of remaining deposition is not more than a day or two. The learned trial Judge should also impose heavy cost on the defence for seeking adjournment without completion of deposition of a particular witness. 9. This Court has no manner of doubt that if the aforesaid guiding principles, which are merely illustrative and not exhaustive, are kept in mind, the possibility of witnesses being won over can be drastically reduced. 10. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to the learned trial Judge to conclude the trial in question as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of resumption of normal functioning in the trial Courts. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of sans cost.