Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA,
Rakesh Narula – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and procedural history. (Para 1) |
| 2. accused's right to representation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. discussion on cross-examination procedures. (Para 6 , 7 , 14) |
| 4. definitions and powers of legal representation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court’s discretion in granting representation permission. (Para 12 , 13 , 22) |
| 6. administrative obligations regarding speedy trials. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. court’s final decision on cross-examination opportunity. (Para 23) |
| 8. disposal of the petition and orders. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), in Case No. 900421 of 2014, titled CBI Vs. DSS Ravindera, vide which the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/applicants. It has been asserted that the CBI filed a charge sheet in the Court of learned Special Judge, Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 419 , 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the present petitioner and other accused persons. Learned Tri
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
The main legal point established is the strict adherence to Section 309 of Cr.P.C., requiring expeditious trials and continuous examination of witnesses, with adjournments only granted for special re....
(1) Adjournment – Impediment in speedy trial – Legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds – Even in cases where accused had been enlarged on bail right to a speedy trial....
The main legal point established is that once the examination of a witness begins, the trial should proceed continuously, with adjournments only granted for the strongest possible reasons, and the du....
High Court inherent powers under BNSS Section 528 exercisable sparingly post-revision only for grave miscarriage of justice; trial court justified closing defence evidence after accused's repeated fa....
A fair trial must guarantee competent legal representation and adherence to procedural law, failure of which invalidates conviction.
In summons trials, closing complainant's evidence justified for repeated non-appearance despite warnings and no exemption application; routine adjournments not permissible, courts must enforce day-to....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of discretion under section 231(2) of Cr.PC must be based on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination, and....
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
