Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Sushil Kumar Purohit – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 12.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge No. 6, Bikaner whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 18.06.2022, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No. 2, Bikaner whereby he closed the right of the petitioner to cross examination the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner in which complainant appeared for his evidence but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to cross-examination him. On that account, the trial court closed the cross-examination of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2022, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Session Judge, Bikaner which was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Bikaner. The said revision was also dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2022. It is submitted that the right of the petitioner may be infringed, if he is not allowed to cross-examine the complain
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.
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 court held that a party's negligence in utilizing opportunities for cross-examination justifies the dismissal of subsequent applications for such opportunities.
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 accused's repeated absences and conduct justified the trial Court's decision to close the right to cross-examine the complainant.
The right to cross-examine the complainant in dishonor of cheque cases is essential for fair trials, as its denial violates natural justice.
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
