The accused's right to cross-examination of witnesses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 can be limited by the court if the accused is deliberately delaying the proceedings.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

Crl.M.A.5425/2018 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 1494/2018 & Crl.M.A.5426/2018 (stay)

1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.

2. The petitioner impugns order dated 14.12.2017, whereby, the Revisional Court has allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

3. The petitioner is an accused in a case filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The petitioner impugned order dated 27.07.2017 of the Trial Court closing the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent.

4. The Trial Court was of the view that the petitioner had been given sufficient time to cross-examine the witnesses, however, the petitioner was delaying the proceedings. The petitioner was insisting on production of the records prior to the continuance with the cross-examination. The Trial Court was of the view that the petitioner was trying to deliberately create difficulties for the Court to prevent conclusion of evidence. The Court was of the view that the witness could only be put relevant questions and could not be compelled to produce any document.

5. The Revisional Court, by the impugned order, granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to conduct cross-examination of the complainant’s witnesses subject to the condition that the petitioner pays cost of Rs.7,000/-. The Revisional Court allowed the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The cost as mentioned above shall be paid to the respondent herein before the start of the cross-examination of any witnesses, failing which no right of cross-examination of CW1 shall be granted to him.

(ii) CW1 shall be present for his cross-examination, thereafter, on the date so fixed by the Ld. Trial Court subject to its convenience and on the date so fixed for cross-examination of CW1, the petitioner shall conclude cross-examination on that day itself and shall not seek any adjournment. Further no adjournment shall be sought on one ground or the other and Ld. Trial court shall be at liberty to proceed ahead as per law.

(iii) Before the start of the cross-exanimation of CW1, petitioner shall prepare all the possible questions for cross-examination of CW1 in writing and before the start of the cross-examination, it shall be considered by Ld. Trial Court and Ld. Trial Court shall be at liberty to decide the relevancy of the proposed questions which are to be put to CW1. If, Ld. Trial Court opines that any of the proposed question is not relevant, then petitioner shall be having liberty to record his objections for the same and after recording the same, Ld. Trial Court may proceed ahead accordingly as per rules and procedures.

(iv) Petitioner shall be having liberty to place on record documents, however, such document should be relevant subject to the merit of the case and such relevancy shall be subject to the decision of the Trial as the case may be.”

6. The Trial Court, by its order dated 27.07.2017, noted as under:-

“ ***** ***** *****

Perusal of the record shows that witness of the complainant has been cross-examined at length on three dates by the accused himself. The accused is at full liberty to ask about the arbitration record but he cannot compel the witness to produce the record if witness himself does not want to produce the same. The court, in such scenario, has directed the accused to continue with the cross-examination ask for production of arbitration record, if required which may be allowed by the court, if they are relevant for disposal of this case. However, the accused insists on the production of records first and then he will continue with cross examination. It appears that accused is deliberately creating difficulty for the court to prevent conclusion of evidence in this matter.