Back
ANAND PATHAK
Sangam Paridhan – Appellant
Versus
Yogendra Kumar Gupta – Respondent
ORDER
1. The present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. arising out of the order dated 28.6.2022 passed by the Fifteenth Additional Session Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.92/2022, whereby order dated 5.4.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior closing the right of petitioners to cross-examine the respondent/complainant has been affirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, informed this Court that vide order dated 25.7.2022, humdast notice was served on respondent/Yogendra Kumar Gupta and notice report is submitted alongwith affidavit of the petitioner No.2/Smt. Padma Bai. Counsel further informed this Court that through mobile also service of notice has been effected over the respondent.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that complaint has been filed by the respondent for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioners/accused on premise of dishonour of cheque. It appears from documents and submissions that due to COVID-19 Pandemic and the reasons assigned in para 4 of the petition for the reasons or the other, petitioners could not cross-examine the witness, therefore, right to cross-ex
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.
Statement of a witness without affording a right to cross -examine and re-examine as per above provision of law cannot be considered to be complete.
The court may exercise its inherent power to grant a final opportunity for cross-examination to an accused in a criminal trial to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of natural justice, provide....
The court emphasized the need to enforce financial discipline in business activities through the summary proceeding of Section 138 of the NI Act, and the importance of balancing the rights of the acc....
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.
Non-compliance with court directions and subsequent attempts at procrastination can lead to the forfeiture of legal rights and influence court decisions.
The accused's repeated absences and conduct justified the trial Court's decision to close the right to cross-examine the complainant.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of ensuring fair opportunities for cross-examination and the consequences of non-compliance.
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
