Back
G. S. AHLUWALIA
Sunil Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
This application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the order dated 13-2-2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 50/2023 by which the right of the applicant to cross-examine the witnesses has been closed.
2. It appears that the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the prosecutrix. On 10-2-2024, the prosecutrix was present but the counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that the Senior Counsel Shri Anil Jain is not present, therefore, the cross-examination may be deferred. Accordingly, the cross-examination was deferred on the ground that in case if the prosecutrix expires or if she is unable to appear for cross-examination, then as per the provisions of section 33 of Evidence Act, her examination-in-chief would be read and with aforesaid observation, the cross-examination was deferred on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. The prosecutrix was bound over and was directed to appear on 12-2-2024. On 12-2-2024, memorandum of appearance was filed by Shri Pushpendra Singh, Advocate that applicant does not wish to get the prosecutrix cross-examined by Shri Khan who was earlier appearing for him and he wants that the prosecutr
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.
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 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 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....
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 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....
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
