JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Tiwari holding brief of Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as Sri Ram Raj, learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following main reliefs: "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set-aside the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow in Sessions Case No. 1309 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansad Badruddin and Another), wherein, the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 was conducted while the examination-in-chief of the PW-2 remained pending, as well as the orders 02.05.2023 and 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow in Sessions Case No. 1309 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansad Badruddin and Another), wherein the learned Trial Court has proceeded to direct that examination-in-chief of all the prosecution witnesses, relied upon in the charge-sheet, be conducted and thereafter the said prosecution witnesses be called for cross examination by the defence, may also kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice. Further, this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the learned Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow to conduct the proceedings of Sessions Case No.1309 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansad Badruddin and Another) in legal and lawful manner, by providing reasonable opportunity to the applicant/accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, before calling the rest of the prosecution witnesses for conducting examination-in-chief, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.1309 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansad Badruddin and Another), arising out of FIR No. 04 of 2021, Police Station ATS, Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow, under Sections 120-B, 121-A I.P.C., Sections 13, 16, 18 and 20 of UAPA, 1967 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 3, 25 and 35 Arms Act, 1959, may kindly remain stayed during the pendency of the present Application, in the interest of justice." 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the cross-examination of PW-1 has been done by the present petitioner, however the same opportunity has been closed for other co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No. 1 showing the orders dated 24.04.2023, 02.05.2023 and 15.05.2023 whereby the examination-in-chief of PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 has been done, however none of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have been permitted to be cross-examined by the petitioner and the order dated 15.05.2023 reveals that the learned trial court has observed that after recording the examination-in-chief of all the prosecution witnesses, the opportunity of cross-examination would be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Section 135 and 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 135 of the Act provides the order of production and examination of witnesses and Section 138 of the Act provides the order of examinations. For convenience, Sections 135 and 138 of the Evidence Act read as under : "135. Order of production and examination of witnesses.—The order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court. 138. Order of examinations.—Witnesses shall be first examined-in chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief." 5. As per Section 138, the witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief then if the adverse party so desires, cross examined, then if the party calling him so desires, re-examined. In other words, the examination-in-chief of the witness would be done first then he would be cross-examined and if there is any need, he may be re-examined. The aforesaid procedure is adopted by the learned trial court, therefore, for the convenience of the parties and also in the interest of justice, all the three steps, if so required, may be done one by one. After recording of examination-in-chief of any witness, he should be cross-examined, thereafter if it is so needed, he may be re-examined. 6. The aforesaid procedure is adopted by the learned trial court, therefore, for the convenience of the parties and also in the interest of justice, all the three steps, if so required, may be done one by one. After recording of examination-in-chief of any witness, he should be cross-examined, thereafter if it is so needed, he may be re-examined. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that if the examination-in-chief of all the prosecution witnesses is recorded, then their cross-examination would not be convenient for the Advocate of the petitioner, therefore he has requested that all the prosecution witnesses whose examination-in-chief has been recorded i.e. prosecution witnesses nos. 2 to 9, they be cross-examined by the petitioner one by one. After the aforesaid cross-examination of PW-2 to PW-9, the examination-in-chief of the other prosecution witnesses be recorded. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that for the aforesaid cross-examination, the short dates may be fixed but the petitioner may be given opportunity to cross-examine all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses one by one. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has referred Section 231 of the Cr.P.C. which provides evidence for prosecution. Learned counsel has referred Sub Clause 2 of Section 231 Cr.P.C. which provides that the trial judge may, as per his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly observed in the order dated 15.05.2023 that after chief-examination of all the prosecution witnesses, those may be cross-examined by the petitioner. 9. Replying the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Baghel has referred a judgment of Apex Court in Re: State of Kerala Vs. Rasheed reported in [ (2019) 13 SCC 297 ] wherein the Apex Court in Para nos. 18, 22 and 23 has held that the examination of witness should be done in accordance with Section 138 of the Act, 1872 and there cannot be a straitjacket formula providing for the grounds on which judicial discretion under Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. can be exercised as it shall depend on case-to-case basis. Vide Para 23 thereof, the factors have been explained by the Apex Court, deciding the application under Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. For the convenience, Para nos. Vide Para 23 thereof, the factors have been explained by the Apex Court, deciding the application under Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. For the convenience, Para nos. 18, 22 and 23 of the judgment read as under: "18. What follows from the discussion is that the norm in any criminal trial is for the examination-in-chief of witnesses to be carried out first, followed by cross-examination, and re-examination if required, in accordance with Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., however, confers a discretion on the Judge to defer the cross-examination of any witness until any other witness or witnesses have been examined, or recall any witness for further cross-examination, in appropriate cases. Judicial discretion has to be exercised in consonance with the statutory framework and context while being aware of reasonably foreseeable consequences.5 The party seeking deferral under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. must give sufficient reasons to invoke the exercise of discretion by the Judge, and deferral cannot be asserted as a matter of right. 22. There cannot be a straitjacket formula providing for the grounds on which judicial discretion under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised. The exercise of discretion has to take place on a case-to-case basis. The guiding principle for a Judge under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether prejudice would be caused to the party seeking deferral, if the application is dismissed. 23. While deciding an Application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The following factors must be kept in consideration: (i) possibility of undue influence on witness(es); (ii) possibility of threats to witness(es); (iii) possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy; (iv) possibility of loss of memory of the witness(es) whose examination-in-chief has been completed; (v) occurrence of delay in the trial, and the non-availability of witnesses, if deferral is allowed, in view of Section 309(1) of the Cr.P.C. These factors are illustrative for guiding the exercise of discretion by a Judge under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C." 10. Sri Baghel has also referred Annexure No. 5 which a judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4201 of 2023 (Sallahuddin Vs. Sri Baghel has also referred Annexure No. 5 which a judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4201 of 2023 (Sallahuddin Vs. State of U.P. and Others), whereby application of Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C. has been discussed in the light of dictum of Apex Court in re: Rasheed (supra). 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the material available on record, the relevant provisions of Section 135 and 138 of the Evidence Act as well as Section 231 of Cr.P.C. and also having regard to the dictum of Apex Court in re:Rasheed (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the examination of any witness should be done strictly in accordance with Section 138 of the Act, 1872 and the discretion so conferred upon the trial court under Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. must be applied judicially and carefully giving specific reasons to that effect, so as to achieve the interest of justice of the cause and the parties. 12. In the present case, the learned trial court has not given any reasons as to why he has not permitted the defence side for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses after completion of examination-in-chief. 13. Hence, I find it appropriate to issue direction to the effect that those prosecution witnesses whose examination-in-chief has been completed i.e. PW-2 to PW-9, their cross-examination be conducted by the petitioner one by one. It is upon the trial court that the aforesaid cross-examination may be conducted on day-to-day bass. After the cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses i.e. from PW-2 to PW-9, the examination-in-chief of the other prosecution witnesses may be permitted to be done. The learned trial court shall also ensure that the trial in question is conducted and concluded with expedition and no one unnecessary adjournment is given to any of the parties. 14. In view of the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.