The right to cross-examination is vital but must adhere to the principles of relevancy and fairness, preventing the creation of artificial contradictions during testimony.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2025 in C.C.No.307 of 2024 on the file of the First Additional Special Court for trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dismissing the petition to eschew the testimony of P.W.2 in light of the judgment in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another¹ Facts in brief:-

2.The petitioner and other accused are facing trial for offences under the NDPS Act, in respect of alleged possession and transportation of 210 kg of ganja. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.2, certain answers were elicited by the defence counsel which, according to the petitioner, were wholly outside the scope of his previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., or his deposition in chief-examination. The petitioner and other accused filed Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2025 seeking to eschew the testimony of P.W.2 to the extent of those answers, contending that the law laid down in Bipin Shantilal Panchal² mandates that all questions should be recorded but admissibility or relevancy can be decided at the final stage. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application holding that contradictions cannot be manufactured by eliciting fresh answers in cross- examination and thereafter confronting the witness by asking whether such answers find place in his prior statement. The learned Trial Court

1 (2001) 3 SCC 1

2 Supra 1 relied on the later decision in Mohana Sundaram v. State³. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

Submissions :-

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in curtailing the right of cross-examination which is a valuable right guaranteed under Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 146 of Indian Evidence act, 1872). Under Section 149 of BSA , 2023 (corresponding to Section 148 Indian Evidence act, 1872,), a witness may be asked any question to test his veracity and shake his credit. The learned Trial Court cannot pre-judge the relevancy or admissibility at the stage of cross-examination. Reliance was placed on Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat ⁴ , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the trial court should not interrupt cross- examination by ruling on admissibility but should mark the evidence subject to objections, leaving the issue to be decided at final stage.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent submitted that reliance on Bipin Shantilal Panchal⁵ is misplaced since later judicial pronouncements have clarified that the learned Trial Courts must decide objections to improper questions at least before the deposition of the concerned witness concludes, so as to avoid prejudicial material

3 2025 (1) LW (Crl) 375

4 Supra 1 5 Supra 1 remaining on record. The defence cannot create contradictions by eliciting new facts from a witness during cross-examination and thereafter asking whether such facts were stated earlier. Such an approach is not supported by law. Reliance was placed on Mohana Sundaram v. State⁶, which in turn referred to Re: Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials ⁷ emphasising that objections must be decided at the appropriate stage and not deferred.

5.Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Statutory Framework :-

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 :-

6.1. Section 148 of BSA , 2023 (cross-examination as to previous statements) :

“A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the