Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.G.AVACHAT
Ramesh B.Gowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.G. AVACHAT, J.
1. In all these Petitions challenge is to the order refusing permission to the Petitioner/Accused to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses.
2. Learned Advocate for the Respondent informs that an ample opportunity was offered to the Petitioners/Accused. He adverted this Court’s attention to the Roznama of the cases. He would submit that on the given date, learned Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused even submitted before the learned Trial Court that he would not conclude the cross-examination. The Court concerned has rightly refused permission to the Petitioners/Accused to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses.
3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that next date before the trial Court is 10th January, 2023. The Advocate representing the Petitioners/Accused before the trial Court would in any case cross-examine the complainant and conclude on the same day.
4. In view of the aforesaid statement, the orders impugned herein are recalled subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-.
5. It is also informed that recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with and right of the Petitioners/Accused to give evidence
The court emphasized the balance between the accused's right to cross-examination and maintaining judicial efficiency, allowing the cross-examination on the condition of costs.
The right to cross-examine is crucial for a fair trial; past absences of the petitioner warrant reconsideration, allowing a final opportunity for cross-examination.
Right to cross-examination is essential in criminal proceedings, and denial without consideration of circumstances is unjust.
The right to cross-examine can be forfeited through negligence, and courts may reject applications to recall such rights if the accused fails to act timely.
Recall of witness – Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.
The court affirmed the essential right to cross-examine witnesses fully, emphasizing no counsel should be compelled to conclude cross-examination in one sitting without justified reasons.
The petitioner's right to participate in the proceedings and the absence of prejudice to the complainant influenced the court's decision to allow the recall of the complainant for further cross-exami....
The interest of substantial justice should prevail over procedural law when there is a conflict between the two.
The genuine difficulty faced by a party's counsel may justify granting additional opportunities in legal proceedings.
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
