IMPORTANT POINT
Re-examination of witnesses – Purpose of re-examination is always available to party who called the witness if it relates to only regarding explanation of matters referred in cross-examination.

JUDGMENT

The instant criminal petition has been filed against the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, in Crl.M.P.No.1255 of 2025 in C.C.No.124 of 2019.

2. Brief fact of the case is that:

The present petitioner being a complainant has filed petition under Section 138 of N.I.Act against the present respondents 1 and 2 for peculiar reasons, thereby, the examination-in-chief of PW.1 was held in the year 2012 thereafter cross-examination could not be performed ultimately it was concluded in the year 2025, in five intervals. After completion of cross-examination, the petitioner filed an application for re-examination being Crl.M.P.No.1255 of 2025. Learned Court below, after hearing the parties, has turned out the application for re-examination, by passing the impugned order. Challenging the same, the instant criminal petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is improper and illegal. Chief-examination was held in the year 2012. Matter was stalled for several reasons for a long time. Thereafter the cross-examination was held by the respondents and completed in the year 2025. At this juncture to elicit truth and to explain matter referred to cross-examination, petitioner may be permitted to re-examination of PW.1. He further submits that the purpose of re-examination of petitioner is required to elicit truth only. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter may be remanded back as the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court has not assigned sufficient reasons.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It appears that the instant matter having its peculiar nature, evidence of PW.1 continued for long period. Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act have laid down the specific purpose how examination of witness can be done. To decide the issue properly, Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act are set out hereunder:—

137. Examination-in-chief.—The examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.

Cross-examination.—The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.

Re-examination.—The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.

138. Order of examinations.—Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party called him so desires) re-examined.

The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

Direction of re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.

7. The issue was also referred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, wherein it is held that:—

“57.4. In fact, it is not at all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial.

57.5. The duty of the Court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safeguard. It is distressing to note that despite series of judg