Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Jaldeep Swami – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by learned District and Session Judge, Udaipur by which the learned revisional court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition as not maintainable, preferred against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases), Court No. 2, Udaipur whereby the learned trial court allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- and also imposed a condition that if the petitioner fails to cross-examine the complainant on the given date and time, then his right to cross-examine the complainant shall automatically be closed.
By this petition, the petitioner also challenges the order dated 06.01.2023, passed by this trial court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no intention to delay the trial and due to genuine reasons, he could not appear before the trial court to cross examine the complainant and the trial court closed his right to cross-examine the complainant. Counsel submits that order of the trial court Closing th
Right to cross-examination is essential in criminal proceedings, and denial without consideration of circumstances is unjust.
The right to cross-examine the complainant in dishonor of cheque cases is essential for fair trials, as its denial violates natural justice.
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.
The court held that under Section 145 of the NI Act, the accused must be allowed to cross-examine the complainant before recording their plea of defence, ensuring the fairness of the trial process.
The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for failing to cross-examine the complainant, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders and procedural timelines.
The right to cross-examine is fundamental to a fair trial, and despite previous adjournments, one last opportunity should be granted to the accused to defend himself, subject to costs.
The court held that a party's negligence in utilizing opportunities for cross-examination justifies the dismissal of subsequent applications for such opportunities.
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.
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
