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, provided the delay is compensated and the conduct is bona fide.

ORDER

Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2026

1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1242/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Muvattupuzha (‘Trial Court’, for short), which is registered on the basis of a complaint registered by the 2nd respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( N. I. Act, for short).

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C., for brevity) that the 2nd respondent was examined as PW1 and three of other witnesses were examined as PWs 2 to 4. The chief examination of all the witnesses were completed and the case was posted for the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 4. The testimonies of the above witnesses are intrinsically connected. In order to have an effective and meaningful examination of the witnesses, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No.1/2026 before the Trial Court seeking permission to cross-examine PWs1 to 3 on the very same day. The said procedure was essential to confront the witnesses with their contradictory statements. However, the Trial Court dismissed the application by Annexure-A2 order. Annexure A2 is erroneous and unsustainable in law.

3. When the Crl. M.C. came up for consideration on 19.05.2026, this Court had called for a report from the Trial Court to ascertain the status of the above complaint.

4. By communication dated 20.05.2026, the Trial Court has reported that the petitioner’s plea was recorded on 26.03.2024. PW1 was examined on 10.02.2025 and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. The petitioner’s counsel was not ready for the cross examination. Though the case was adjourned on two posting dates, that too on payment of cost, the petitioner’s counsel refused to cross- examine the above witnesses. PW1 is a 76 year old person. Taking into consideration the refusal on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, the evidence was closed and PWs 2 to 4 were also examined. The said witnesses were not cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner. Consequentially, the Trial Court closed the evidence and the case was posted for the petitioner’s statement under Section 313(1) of the Cr.P.C. and for defence evidence. But, the petitioner did not appear. Subsequently, a bailable warrant was issued against her and she got herself enlarged on bail on self bond. It is thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to permit her to cross-examine the above witnesses. There is no bonafides in the application.

5. When the Crl.M.C came up for consideration on 08.06.2026, this Court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, to ensure a fair trial, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court subject to conditions that the petitioner pays a cost of Rs.15,000/- to the 2nd respondent on or before today (22.06.2026).

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner has paid the cost to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has no objection in the application being allowed. The petitioner may be permitted to cross examine PWs1 to 3, but, they may be examined on 24.06.2026, the day the case is posted for hearing. PWs1 and 2 are presently abroad and they have to leave next month and they will return only after three months.

8. In light of the above sequence of events and the fact that the petitioner has already shown her bonafides by paying cost to the 2nd respondent, I take a lenient view in the matter by permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the PWs1 to 3 on the next posting date, wh