Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. With the consent of both the respective parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023, against the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Court of Learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, district- Raipur whereby the learned Special Judge has closed the accused’s right to cross examine the witness PW-08 Chandrahas Verma A.S.I Investigating Officer of this case. 3. The case in nutshell is that on 19.01.2024 the Police Authority received an insider tip that one person was carrying a bag containing psychotropic substance ganja and selling it while standing at the Ring Road No. 03 going towards Vidhansabha, Raipur. As soon as the police authorities received the information, they conducted raid at the spot, the present applicant was found and upon search of police authority, seized Ganja weighing about 10.380 Kg from the possession of accused and accordingly he was arrested. Police completed the investigation filed the chargesheet for the offence under section 20(B) of the NDPS Act under the crime no. 32/2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court ought to have considered the fact that the counsel for the petitioner was already taking the cross-examination in another trial before the same court and due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners, could not cross-examined the investigating officer and has humble prayed for short adjournment to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. It would be unjust if the petitioner is not granted an opportunity to cross-examine the investigating officer of the case which would hamper the case of the petitioner and cause serious prejudice to him. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and states that there is no cogent and valid reason as to why there is a need of interference on the order passed by the learned trial court. 6. I have heard learned counsels for both the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi V. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2019 SC 1976 has held in para 15 as under:- 15. 6. I have heard learned counsels for both the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi V. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2019 SC 1976 has held in para 15 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. An application under Section 311 CrPC 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 CrPC 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Natasha Singh Vs. 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State) reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3554 has held in para 9 as under:- Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. 9. It is observed by the above discussion, right to cross-examination is a part of right to fair which every person has in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty. In the case in hand, a bare perusal of the aforesaid proceeding and the subsequent order passed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court leaves no manner of doubt that viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it defeats the entire purpose of the right of an accused to cross examined the main Investigating Officer PW-08. It is apparent that PW-08 who is the concerned investigating officer of the instant case has not been cross-examined and regardless of its admissibility or relevance, the learned Judge of the Trial court ought to have closed the right of the petitioner to cross examine PW-08. It is trite that cross-examination is the only tool available to a defence lawyer to test the veracity of a prosecution witness, it is only way out to an accused to clear his name from the alleged offence hence his right to cross examine PW-08 cannot be curtailed in such a cavalier manner. 10. In the result, I find some merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed only for cross-examination of PW-08, Investigating Officer . The learned trial court shall afford a chance to the petitioner to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. 10. In the result, I find some merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed only for cross-examination of PW-08, Investigating Officer . The learned trial court shall afford a chance to the petitioner to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall bear the expenses of the witnesses which would be fixed by the learned trial court. The trial court is free to impose conditions as it thinks fit. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025 is set aside. 11. Needless to say, it is expected that the learned counsel for the petitioner shall not ask any question which are irrelevant and not pertains to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further more, no adjournment will be sought by him on any ground whatsoever. It is further clarified that in case for any reason if PW-08 Investigating Officer is not available for the purpose of further cross-examination, his testimony shall be read in evidence as it is. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of, pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. 12. Accordingly, this petition under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 deserves to be and is hereby allowed.