Surendra Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

.....in the disqualification application filed by shri yeddyurappa. mr. nariman submitted that the speaker had applied two different yardsticks as far as the appellants and shri m.p. renukacharya and shri narasimha nayak are concerned, despite the fact that they too had written identical letters to the governor withdrawing support to the government led by shri yeddyurappa. mr. nariman submitted that once shri m.p. renukacharya and shri narasimha nayak had written to the governor expressing their decision to withdraw support to the government headed by shri yeddyurappa, the provisions of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the tenth schedule came into operation immediately and the speaker was no longer competent to reverse the same. mr. nariman submitted that at every stage the speaker had favoured shri yeddyurappa and even though rule 7(2) of the 1986 rules provided for the dismissal of the petition which did not comply with the requirements of rule 6, as in the present case, the speaker did not do so. reiterating mr. nariman's submissions, mr. rao submitted that withdrawal of support by the appellants to the government led by shri yeddyurappa did not amount to voluntarily relinquishing the membership of the bjp since the government led by a particular leader and the political party are not synonymous. mr. rao submitted that in blatant disregard of the above-mentioned rules, the speaker had entertained the defective petition filed by shri yeddyurappa in complete disregard of rules 6 and 7 of the 1986 rules. mr. rao pointed out that paragraph 100 of the decision in kihoto hollohan's case (supra) declares the speaker or the chairman acting under paragraph 6 of the tenth schedule to be a tribunal. mr. sorabjee submitted that after detailed replies had been filed by the appellants, a full- fledged hearing had been given to them and hence the appellants did not suffer any prejudice on account of the procedure adopted by the speaker in disposing of shri yeddyurappa's..........2008, state v. surendra singh and others under sections 323, 504, 506 ipc and section 3 (1) (x) s.c./s.t. act, whereby application under section 311 cr.p.c. filed on behalf of the applicants for permission to crossexamine p.w.1 was rejected.3. the facts, as revealed by order dated 19.1.2011, are that on 19.8.2009, the case was fixed for evidence. examination-in-chief of p.w.1 biri singh was recorded before lunch and the case was posted after lunch for cross-examination. at about 2:35 p.m., the application for adjournment was moved on behalf of the defence counsel on the ground that he was busy in another court. the said application was rejected and opportunity for cross-examination of p.w.1 was closed. on 17.9.2009, application under section 311 cr.p.c. was moved by accused for opportunity of crossexamination of p.w.1, which was rejected. learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on 19.8.2009,the applicants' counsel could not appear before the trial court for cross-examination of p.w.1, as he was busy in another court and, therefore, learned trial court ought to have adjourned the case and should not have closed the opportunity for cross-examination.4. subsequently, when application under section 311 cr.p.c. was moved, the same ought to have been allowed and should not have been rejected whimsically. 5. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that by rejecting the application under section 311 cr.p.c., valuable rights of the applicants for cross-examination of p.w.1 have been adversely effected. the accused in a criminal case cannot be punished simply for the reason that his counsel could not appear in court for the purpose of cross-examination.6. reasonable opportunity of cross-examination should always be granted to the accused. it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicants were in any manner abusing the process of law. p.w.1 was examined on 19.8.2009 and on that date, adjournment was sought by.....