The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.

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 applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix was closed. It is clear from the said order that the prosecutrix was present and on that date Shri R.K.Gupta, Advocate appeared and filed his Memorandum and prayed for time to cross-examine the prosecutrix. When the Court insisted that the accused must pay the cost to the witness, then the counsel for applicant also refused to pay any cost. Under these circumstances, the trial court closed the right of the applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix.

3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that conduct of the applicant in not cross-examining the prosecutrix was not correct but he may be granted one more opportunity.

4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for State.

5. The primary contention of counsel for applicant is that in case if he is not granted one more opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix, then he would suffer irreparable loss.

6. This Court inn the case of Akash Batham & Orrs. vs. Santoshi passed in CRR No. 380/2017 (Gwalior Bench) by order dated 21/4/2017 has held as under:-

“Thus, it is clear that when the witnesses are present, then the case can be adjourned only on the ground of social reasons to be recorded in writing.

From the order dated 12/04/2017, it is clear that the Trial Court, instead of closing the right of the applicants for cross- examining the witnesses, gave an opportunity to the counsel for the applicants to cross-examine the witnesses after lunch hours and instead of making preparation of the case, it appears that the counsel for the applicants straightaway made a prayer for adjournment of the case on the ground that he wants to challenge the order of the Trial Court by filing a criminal revision before the High Court and, therefore, prayed that the trial should be adjourned. Thus, it is clear that sole intention of the applicants appear to be somehow get the trial adjourned in order to avoid cross-examination of the witnesses present in the Court. If the prayer for adjournment was bonafide, then the counsel for the applicants was already granted liberty to cross-examine the witnesses after lunch hours but instead of showing any bonafide, he still persisted with his prayer for adjournment of the trial. Thus, under these circumstances, the Trial Court did not commit any mistake in drawing an inference that the sole intention of the applicants behind filing of the application for adjournment is to somehow avoid the cross-examination of the witnesses.

Under these circumstances, when the witnesses were present in the Court and the prosecutrix was examined and cross- examined by the applicants, it cannot be said that the application which was filed for adjournment was because of any bonafide reason. Further, there is nothing on record that the applicants have ma