ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner herein is against an order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases) No.2, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No.4/2021,, vide which, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall/re-summon a witness i.e. Ghanshyam Soni (PW/15), was dismissed. 2. Relevant facts of the case leading to filing the application under Section 311 ibid are as follows: 2.1 That an FIR bearing No.73/2010 was registered against Rajendra Sishodiya and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, CPS, Jaipur on 06.04.2024. After filing of charge-sheet, learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons and the trial is going on. 2.1 The examination-in-chief of PW/15, Ghanshyam Soni, started on 27.11.2017 and concluded on 13.02.2019. Thereafter, the cross-examination of the said witness began on 19.11.2022. On the said date, cross-examination could not be completed as counsel for the petitioner was busy in an other court. However, the cross-examination was closed by order of the learned trial court. 2.2 Thereafter, an application under Section 311 read with Section 231 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial court to recall the aforesaid witness for cross-examination. Vide impugned order dated 27.07.2023, the said application was rejected. Hence, this petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have also gone through the case file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues on the lines of the grounds taken in the petition herein, urging that the learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, has not properly appreciated the provisions of Section 311 r/w 231 Cr.P.C. in the right perspective. It is a settled position of law that the necessity of recording the evidence of a person who is a material witness must be examined, coupled with the need for a just decision in the case. Therefore, in the absence of complete cross-examination of the witness, the correct factual position would not be available on the record. The petitioner has been illegally deprived of his legal right to cross-examine the material witness. Therefore, in the absence of complete cross-examination of the witness, the correct factual position would not be available on the record. The petitioner has been illegally deprived of his legal right to cross-examine the material witness. 4.2 The Learned court below while passing the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 has not taken into consideration the number of opportunities given for recording the evidence of PW/15 Ghanshyam Soni. Whereas, not even one adjournment which was sought, due to circumstances beyond control was granted for cross examination of the said witness to the petitioner. 4.3 He urges that the learned court below has not taken into consideration the important aspect that PW/15 Ghanshyam Soni is one of the crucial material witnesses and has also been declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, his cross-examination is essential. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned P.P. defends the impugned order and states that no interference is warranted. 6. Having heard the learned counsels and on going through the contents of the petition and the grounds contained therein as well as on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial court below seems to have got over swayed with the mindset, that in case another opportunity is given to cross-examine, the same will delay the trial, which had commenced 10 years ago. Even though, the cross-examination could not be carried out without any fault of the petitioner (i.e. the accused), as his counsel was on his legs before another court at the same time, for which, short accommodation was sought. 7. Not only the learned trial court declined to accommodate the request but it is borne out that it was the first very opportunity granted to cross-examine the said witness. The petitioner had earlier on, neither sought any adjournment nor was there any occasion, as the witness had never been summoned prior thereto for cross-examination. Though, of course, he had come earlier for examination-in-chief. 8. The petitioner had earlier on, neither sought any adjournment nor was there any occasion, as the witness had never been summoned prior thereto for cross-examination. Though, of course, he had come earlier for examination-in-chief. 8. On the other hand, there is another aspect of the matter, i.e. prosecution was given number of opportunities to record the evidence of the said witness i.e. Ghanshyam Soni (PW/15), but when it came to the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the said witness, the same was forfeited on the very first day, that to for no fault of his, when his counsel could not appear as he was in another court at the same time. 9. It is also not disputed that the said witness is a material witness being one of the complainants. Denial of right of cross-examination to the petitioner would thus cause prejudice to his rights and jeopardize his entire defence and result in irreparable loss to him. 10. In the overall circumstances, I am of the view that learned trial court took an over pedantic view in not according one more opportunity to the petitioner. It was rather harsh in forfeiting his right to do so, despite the fact that the petitioner had made all arrangements of engaging counsel, who, as it turned out, at the same time was called in other court to assist in another matter. 11. In the premise, the petition is allowed. The order dated 27.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases) No.2, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No.4/2021 is quashed. 12. Subject to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Legal Aid Services, Jodhpur, the petitioner shall be given one more opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witness. However, it is made clear that in case due to burden of work or otherwise, the learned trial court on its own discretion wants to adjourn the matter and grant further opportunity, it shall be at liberty to do so.