ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 25.9.2019 passed by First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, in C.C.No.177/2005. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. Though this case is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties it is taken up for final disposal. 4. The factual matrix of the case are that petitioner-accused while working with the bank has misappropriated the money given by the customers in order to deposit the same into their account. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.43/2002 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that PWs.1, 5 and 15 were came to be examined on 24.7.2006, 31.3.2015 and 15.9.2016. At that time, because of some restraint, they have not been crossexamine by the accused. The prayer made by the accused has been rejected. Subsequently, though the remaining witnesses were came to be examined and when the matter has been posted for recording the statement of the accused, an application came to be filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the said witnesses. The trial Court without giving sufficient opportunity to the accused, has rejected the application. 6. He further submitted that as per the direction of this Court, it has been ascertained that PWs.1, 5 and 15 are available for the purpose of crossexamination. It is his further submission that they are all official witnesses and after a long gap of time if they have been recalled and crossexamined, no prejudice is going to be caused to the case of the prosecution. If crossexamination is not allowed, then under such circumstances, there will not be any fair chance to the accused and the evidence of the prosecution will be remaining unchallenged. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order. If crossexamination is not allowed, then under such circumstances, there will not be any fair chance to the accused and the evidence of the prosecution will be remaining unchallenged. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order. 7.Percontra,the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that though the said witnesses have been examinedinchief about 13 years back, the application came to be filed at a belated stage, that too when the case was at a final stage for conclusion and for hearing the arguments. It is his further submission that if the witnesses were recalled after a long span of time, then under such circumstances, they will loss their memory and there will be more contradictions and omissions and it will be very difficult to appreciate the evidence of such witnesses. It is his further submission that as per Section 309 of Cr.P.C. the witnesses are to be examined on day to day basis, but in the instant case on hand, the application has been filed after a long span of time. The trial Court after considering the facts and material has rightly rejected the said application. There are no good grounds to allow the petition. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. I am conscious of the fact that calling of the witnesses for crossexamination after a long span of time is not permissible and if the witnesses are called at a later stage, after a long gap they will not remember what has been deposed in their examinationinchief and it may cause prejudice, but however in the instant case on hand, though the case is one of misappropriation of funds of the bank and it is a matter on record and all these materials will be available on record to refresh memories of the witnesses and that too when the witnesses have worked in the bank, then under such circumstances they can refresh their memory by going through the documents and examinationinchief, no prejudice would going to be caused to the prosecution, but however, they have to secure from a distance places, as after retirement they have been settled in some other State. But that can be meted out by imposing some reasonable cost. 10. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, the petition is allowedand the order dated 25.9.2019 passed by First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, in C.C.No.177/2005 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to recall PWs.1, 5 and 15 and fix up a date for crossexamination and the petitioner-accused without their being any excuse has to crossexamine the said witnesses on the same day and he has to pay the actual expenses of travel by train from their place to this place and return an amount of Rs.1,000/per day to meet incidental charges is to be paid for their stay. Payment of cost is a condition precedent before crossexamination.