Back
G. S. AHLUWALIA
Tulsi Ram Lodhi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 6.3.2024 passed by Additional Judge too Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen by which the right of the applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix has been closed.
2. It appears that on 9.2.2024 the prosecutrix appeared for examination and her examination-in-chief was recorded. Although in the order-sheet of the said date, the trial court has mentioned that examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecutrix were completed and she was released. But from the deposition sheet, which has been filed as Annexure A/3, it is clear that after the examination-in-chief of prosecutrix was recorded, the counsel for accused/applicant prayed for deferment of the cross-examination on the ground that he has not properly prepared the case and some more information is required from the accused. Accordingly, the cross-examination was deferred. The case was adjourned for 23.2.2024. The petitioner has not filed the copy of ordersheet dated 23.2.2024 to show as to what transpired on the said date. However, by impugned order dated 6.3.2024 the right of the applic
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 court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
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....
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....
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....
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....
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
