[2026:RJ-JD:10237]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1333/2026 Lalit Kumar Gadri S/o Shri Mithu Lal Gadri, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Semliya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Mahendra Kumar Khateek S/o Shri Narendra Kumar Khateek, R/o House No. 21. Shiv Shakti Nagar, Near Parvati Garden, Senti, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

19/02/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Case, Chittorgarh by which, the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses has been closed as well as the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned District & Session Judge, Chittorgarh, whereby the revision petition has been dismissed as not maintainable.

Learned counsel further submits that if right to cross-

examine is closed, the same will deny fair opportunity to defend and fair trial to him and hence one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Dalveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 CRI.L.J. 3064 Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

Perusal of the order dated 26.11.2025 clearly reveals that right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses was closed on 08.08.2025 as the counsel could not contact the petitioner- accused. However, the application was filed immediately for recalling the witness for cross examination but the same has been rejected. Apparently closure of opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses seems to be unjustified, and the same would deny fair trial to the petitioner.

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dalveer Singh Vs.

State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 CRI.L.J. 3064, has observed that criminal justice delivery system is essentially founded on Constitution of India and a sacrosanct fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life and liberty, cannot be circumscribed and curtailed without adhering to the procedure established by law. While granting indulgence to the accused, the Court made a specific observation that a mistake of the counsel should not prejudice the cause of a litigant. The Court held as under:-

“6.The entire criminal justice system is based on Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Both life and personal liberty can be cribbed, cabined and confined only by procedure established by law. But even the procedure has to be a reasonable one. A fair trial is a constitutional guaranteed right of an accused. Since, the accused is pitted against the colossal power of the State, the laws, ipso facto, tilt in favour of the accused. Until and unless, the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine a witness, he would not be able to demolish the prosecution case. Therefore, the right to cross- examine a witness is a fundamental right of the accused; such a right cannot be brushed aside lightly by the trial court. Even if a prejudice is being caused to the prosecution, even then, the fundamental right cannot be ignored.

Further, repeatedly it has been held both by the Apex Court and by this Court that a mistake of a counsel should not prejudice the case of a litigant.

7. In the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao, AIR 2012 SC 2242(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined as under:- But merely because a mistake was committed, should not result in the accused suffering a penalty totally disproportionate to the gravity of the error committed by his lawyer. Denial of an opportunity to recall the witnesses for cross-examination would amount to condemning the Appellant without giving him the opportunity to chal