Back
K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Madugu Jhon Kennady Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
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 t
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
