Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Madugu Jhon Kennady Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 686 of 2022
Decided On : 07-09-2022
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTIONS 7, 13(2) READ WITH 13(1)(D) - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTIONS 231(2), 242(3) - CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - DEFERMENT - DISCRETION OF COURT - FAIR TRIAL - ADJOURNMENT - SCHEDULE OF DATES FOR RECORDING EVIDENCE - DUTY OF COURT TO INSULATE WITNESSES FROM UNDUE INFLUENCE OR INTIMIDATORY TACTICS OR HARASSMENT - RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a corruption case, filed a petition seeking adjournment of the trial to enable him to cross-examine all the witnesses at once. The petitioner contended that the evidence of all the witnesses was co-existent with each other and connecting right from the trap to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, and therefore, he should be allowed to cross-examine all the witnesses at once to impeach their demeanour.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's request for adjournment was not maintainable as he had failed to cross-examine the witnesses who had already been examined in-chief. The court further held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in refusing to grant the adjournment, as the petitioner had not shown any sound reasons for deferring the cross-examination of the witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine all the witnesses at once? 2. Whether the trial court had abused its discretion in refusing to grant the adjournment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to cross-examine all the witnesses at once, as this would be contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Cr.P.C. 2. The court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in refusing to grant the adjournment, as the petitioner had not shown any sound reasons for deferring the cross-examination of the witnesses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to co-operate with the trial court for the disposal of the case.
JUDGMENT
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 14.07.2022 in Crl.M.P. No. 691 of 2022 in C.C. No. 170 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram.
2. A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By way of its it's Order dated 24.02.2022 in Criminal Petition No. 95 of 2022 filed by the petitioner, this Court disposed of the said Criminal Petition directing the Special Judge to complete trial within a period of four months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 691 of 2022 in the said C.C. seeking adjournment stating that examination of all the witnesses including the Investigating Officer, in-chief is necessary for cross-examining all the witnesses at once by the defence counsel, since the evidence in nature of all witnesses are co-existence with each other and connecting right from trap to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, and in the circumstances, contents of cross-examination of P.W. 1 would be known to the other witnesses and that the petitioner would be ready for cross-examination of all the witnesses at once, so that he would get a fair chance of cross-examination for the purpose of impeaching the demeanour of the witnesses. Vide the impugned order dated 14.07.2022, the learned Special Judge dismissed the Crl.M.P. on the ground that in view of the directions given by this court, at the instance of the petitioner, witness was present on receipt of summons and as the witnesses' evidence would be lengthy, summons to one witness only was issued initially and for rest of the witnesses, schedule can be issued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is desirable that all the witnesses have to be examined in-chief and thereafter the petitioner intends to cross-examine them. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to proceed, in case if the Hon'ble Court gives a schedule in respect of examination of P.W. 1 to the Investigating Officer at a stretch. He relied on a judgment of the Delhi High court dated 03.07.2017 in WP (Crl.) No. 1350 of 2017 in Vijaya Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
4. On the contrary, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent, opposing the petition. It is contended that the revision is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner intended to cross-examine all the witnesses after their chief-examination, which is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that trial has commenced and P.W. 1 was examined on 26.07.2022 and 27.07.2022, but the petitioner/accused officer has not availed opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and therefore the Special Judge reported cross-examination of P.W. 1 as 'nil'. Again, the case was posted to 29.07.2022 and on that day, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were examined and cross-examination of P.Ws. 2 and 3 was reported as Nil. Thereafter, the case was posted on 17.08.2022. On that day, P.W. 4 was examined and as far as cross-examination is concerned, it is reported as 'nil'. The petitioner/accused officer failed to cross-examine all the witnesses and thereafter, the matter is posted to 25.08.2022.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. In the subject C.C., so far, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined in-chief by the Court below. In respect of all the witnesses, petitioner/accused officer did not choose to cross-examine them for the reasons best known to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused officer relied on a judgment dealing with the provisions under Sections 231(2) and 242(3) Cr.P.C., but surprisingly, filed the petition before the Special Judge under Section 309 Cr.P.C. for adjournment of the case.
7. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Vijaya Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) case (supra), it has been held thus:
'4
The court has the discretion to defer the cross-examination of a witness under Sections 231(2) and 242(3) Cr.P.C., but this discretion must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the princip....
The court established that an order affecting the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses is not merely interlocutory and can be challenged under revisional jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of discretion under section 231(2) of Cr.PC must be based on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination, and....
The central legal point established is the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses, allowing the recall of witnesses for cross-examination to ensure the collection....
Discretion under Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C. allows deferring cross-examination to protect the accused's right to a fair trial, balancing between the defense's interest and prosecution’s prerogative.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
The accused persons should not be forced to cross-examine the witness if the application filed under section 231(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is allowed, and a criminal court cannot alter or rev....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
