to the effect that the application under section 319 CrPC may be heard and decided before the cross-examination. Even the Public Prosecutor SLP(Crl.) No.12292 of 2022 Page 5 of 14had opposed the application filed by the de facto complainant for hearing of the 319 CrPC application. He also stated that other witnesses are coming and returning because of the repeated absence of PWs 1,2 and 3. The Trial Court thus fixed 29.09.2020 for cross- examination and also recorded its displeasure and inclination to execute the bailable warrants of arrest against the witnesses. It directed the Public Prosecutor to ensure presence of the witnesses and also directed the Investigating Officer to remain present with the witnesses. 8. Again on 21.09.2020 the sole accused – appellant was present. An application was filed by the complainant-respondent no.2 stating that aggrieved by the orders dated 14.09.2020 and 15.09.2020 she had preferred CRR No.1357/2020 and CRAN No.1/2020 which is likely to be taken