ORDER 1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by Special Court, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act No.l, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court'), whereby the learned trial court rejected the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner seeking reserving the cross examination of victim P.W.2 Mst. W and discharged P.W.2 Mst. W from being cross examined by the petitioner while exercising the powers vested in it under Section 309 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the First Information Report No.242/2020 lodged at Police Station Rishabh dev, Udaipur, the present petitioner was prosecuted and is being tried by the Special Court, POCSO Act No. 1, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 363, 376, 344 IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. During the course of the trial, victim Mst. W appeared as prosecution witness P.W.2 before the trial court on 29.09.2021. After completion of Examination-in-Chief of P.W.2, the counsel for the accused petitioner prayed before the trial court that without providing him a copy of the Examination-in-Chief, he is unable to communicate the questions for cross-examination of P.W.2. On this, learned trial court asked him that since the Examination-in-Chief has taken place in his presence, he may go through the statement and then proceed for cross-examination. But the counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner expressed his inability to cross-examine without having been obtained copy of the statement of Examination-in-Chief and requested the trial court that cross-examination of the witness P.W.2 may be kept reserved. The learned trial court instead of acceding to the request for providing the copy of the Examination-in-Chief of P.W.2, while exercising powers under Section 309 Cr.P.C. discharged the P.W.2 from being cross-examined as it is necessary under Section 33 (2) of the POCSO Act that prior to cross-examination of a witness, the counsel appearing for the accused shall communicate the questions to be put to the victim to the Special Court which shall in turn put those questions to the victim. Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned trial court, the present petition has been filed. Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned trial court, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since P.W.2 is a star witness in this case and if the accused-petitioner is not allowed to cross examine, then it will seriously prejudice the case of the petitioner and the same would be detrimental to him in this case. Learned counsel further submits that right to cross examine of a witness is an indefeasible right and if the same is denied by the trial court, then irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in the interest of justice and fair trial, one more opportunity may be granted to the accused petitioner to cross examine the witness P.W.2. 4. I have considered the submission made at the Bar and have gone through the Examination-in-Chief of P.W.2 as well as the order of refusal by the trial court for cross-examination of P.W.2 by the counsel for the accused-petitioner along with other relevant documents placed on record. 5. It is noted that as per the statement of Mst. W recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she has stated to have gone with the present petitioner of her own will. The age of the Mst. W is reported to be 18 years and the same gets corroborated from the medical examination of Mst. W showing the age to be 17 years and 11 months. 6. The refusal of the trial court for providing a copy of the Examination-in-Chief of P.W.2 does not suffer from any infirmity. More particularly, the discretion exercised by the trial court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was just and proper. As per Section 231 and 309 Cr.P.C. which are reproduced as under, the discretion is solely with the trial court to adjourn the matter for cross examination :- 231. Evidence for prosecution. (1). On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (2). The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross -examination. 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. (1). (2). The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross -examination. 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. (1). In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same 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. (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.] Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused. 7. Learned trial court has rightly exercised the discretion by refusing the counsel for the accused petitioner to provide copy of Examination-in-Chief for the purpose of the cross examination asked for by him and therefore, as per the established procedure of law the same does not call for any interference. 7. Learned trial court has rightly exercised the discretion by refusing the counsel for the accused petitioner to provide copy of Examination-in-Chief for the purpose of the cross examination asked for by him and therefore, as per the established procedure of law the same does not call for any interference. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of this case, wherein the P.W.2 is almost 18 years of age and a student of B.A. II year as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in particular, this Court is of the view that considering the entire facts, the ends of justice will be met if one opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross examine the witness P.W.2 which in the considered opinion of this Court will be a fair chance being given to the petitioner for defending himself at the trial. The view of this Court is supported by the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Anokhilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (in Criminal Appeal Nos.62-63 of 2014 decided on December 18, 2019) which is as under:-. ' 18. Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice." 8. Further, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Shashikala Vs. State Represented by Superintendent of Police reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771 , expressed a caution as under:- "23.4 While the anxiety to bring the trial to its earliest conclusion has to be shared it is fundamental that in the process none of the well-entrenched principles of law that have been precedents are sacrificed or compromised. State Represented by Superintendent of Police reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771 , expressed a caution as under:- "23.4 While the anxiety to bring the trial to its earliest conclusion has to be shared it is fundamental that in the process none of the well-entrenched principles of law that have been precedents are sacrificed or compromised. In no circumstance, can the cause of justice be made to suffer, though, undoubtedly, it is highly desirable that the finality of any trial is achieved in the quickest possible time." 9. Since the case is being tried under the POCSO Act of 2012, the victim should not be allowed to appear in the Court casually and time and again, therefore, this Court feels that for securing the presence of P.W.2, she should be suitably compensated. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the present petition is allowed. The learned trial court is directed to summon P.W.2 on a suitable date and allow the cross-examination by the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) before the trial court within a period of one week from today. It is made clear that if the single opportunity granted for the cross examination of the witness P.W.2 is not availed by the petitioner, then no further opportunity will be granted to him. The said amount of Rs.5,000/-be paid to P.W.2 for her appearance before the trial court on the next date.