ORDER : 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage. 2. Challenge in this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to the order dated 29.07.2022 (Annex. P-1) passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in SSC No. 12/2022 thereby rejecting application of petitioner filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth “the Code”) seeking cross-examination of PW-01 prosecutrix/victim, PW-02 & PW-03 parents of the prosecutrix/ victim. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner accused is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, under Sections 376(j), 307/34, 342, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the Trial Court. On 10/06/2022, the Trial Court recorded the statement of the prosecutrix PW-01 and her parents PW-02 & PW-03, but on that day, the counsel engaged on behalf of the petitioner was at Raipur due to some professional work, therefore, the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and her parents could not be done. An application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the Trial Court for recall of the prosecutrix and her parents PW-02 & PW-03 for their cross-examination, as those witnesses have not been cross examined on behalf of the petitioner. By the impugned order the said application was rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous. He submits that the petitioner/accused is in jail/judicial custody. PW-01, PW-02 & PW-03 are the important witnesses in this case and not even a single question was put to them by the accused himself because he is an illiterate villager (labour), unable to understand the legal provision and the counsel engaged by him for contesting the case was at Raipur in connection with some other case. He submits that fair trial is the main object of the criminal procedure and Court is bound to ensure that such provision is not hampered in any manner. Fair opportunity must also be given to the accused for cross-examination. He submits that fair trial is the main object of the criminal procedure and Court is bound to ensure that such provision is not hampered in any manner. Fair opportunity must also be given to the accused for cross-examination. It is also submitted that after framing of charge on 01/06/2022, the case was fixed on 10/06/2022 for recording evidence of the witnesses (PW-01, PW-02 & PW-03). However, on that day the counsel for the petitioner/accused was not present and as such the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses could not be done. The object of cross-examination is to test the story of a witness given by him in the examination-in-chief and assist the Court in finding out the truth and prevent the miscarriage of justice. The trial Court was not justifying in rejecting the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. as for want of cross-examination of these material witnesses (PW-01, PW-02 & PW-03). The defence of the petitioner would be adversely affected. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses through his counsel. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019 (14) SCC 328 and the decision of this Court in the matter of Manish Sonkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed on 25/02/2022 in CRMP No. 74/2022. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that while rejecting application of petitioner filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the reasons assigned by the Court below are in accordance with law. There is no infirmity or illegality in impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as documents placed on record. 7. In the matter of Natasha Singh v. CBI (State) reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held as under :- “15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as ‘any Court’, ‘at any stage”, or ‘or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings’, ‘any person’ and ‘any such person’ clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.” 8. In the matter of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paras 10 & 11 as under :- “10. The first part of this Section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law”. 9. True it is that Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act mandates that the evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of 30 days after taking cognizance of the evidence but in the present case after framing charges on 01/06/2022, the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the child/victim and her parents just after 9 days on 10/06/2022. From the perusal of the order sheets of the Court below, it is seen that when the victim and her parents were present before the Trial Court for recording evidence, no counsel on behalf of the accused was present there and the accused was produced there from the jail. The accused informed the Court that his counsel has gone to Raipur and expressed his readiness to cross examine the witnesses himself but not even a single question was put by him to the witnesses during cross-examination 10. Cross-examination of the witness happens to be more important for the reason that examination-in-chief is nothing but unverified version of the witness and it is only during the course of cross-examination that necessary information can be elicited and only such part of the witness, which withstood cross-examination, becomes acceptable. Cross-examination of the witness happens to be more important for the reason that examination-in-chief is nothing but unverified version of the witness and it is only during the course of cross-examination that necessary information can be elicited and only such part of the witness, which withstood cross-examination, becomes acceptable. In the present case, admittedly PW-01 & PW-02 & PW-03 are the material witnesses whose evidence have a strong bearing in the case but due to absence of the defence counsel their cross-examination could not be done which would ultimately affect the interest of the accused. 11. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegation against the petitioner accused, the gravity of the offence, the object of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the aforesaid ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application under Section 311 of the petitioner. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses (PW-01 & PW-02 & PW-03). The petitioner shall bear the expenses of the witness which would fixed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court is free to impose any often conditions as it thinks fit. It is made clear that no adjournment will be sought by the accused petitioner on any ground whatsoever.