A court may grant an additional opportunity for cross-examination if the failure to conduct it was due to a justified reason, such as the counsel's engagement in professional elections, to ensure a fair trial.

Order

1. the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.11.2018, passed by the Court of Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.34, Chaksu, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, by which the complainant- petitioner’s opportunity of cross-examination with the accused- respondent has been closed.

2. None has put appearance on behalf of the petitioner. But looking to the fact that interim order is operating in the instant petition since 04.12.2018, and the instant petition is lying pending before this Court since last more than 8 years, this Court deems it just and proper to look into the averments and submissions made in the instant petition and decide the same on its merits.

3. Perusal of the documents annexed with the petition indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 was submitted by the complainant-petitioner (hereinafter referred as a ‘complainant’) against the accused- respondent (hereinafter referred as ‘respondent’). During pendency of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent failed to avail the opportunity to put his defence evidence. Hence, his defence evidence was closed by the Trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2018.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent has approached this Court by way of filing the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6241/2018 and the said petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2018 and a last opportunity was granted to the respondent to put his defence evidence on the next date before the Trial Court and the complainant was also given liberty to cross-examine the respondent on the said day.

5. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the statements of the respondent were recorded under Section 315 Cr.P.C., but on that day, the counsel for the complainant was busy in elections, hence, he could not appear for cross-examination with the respondent and an application was also submitted in this regard by the complainant before the Trial Court on 19.11.2018 itself. But, looking to the order passed by this Court dated 24.10.2018 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6241/2018, the date was not deferred and the complainant’s opportunity of cross-examination with the respondent was closed.

6. The Trial Court was right in passing the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 in pursuance of the order dated 24.10.2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6241/2018. However, looking to the fact that the cross- examination could not be done on account of unavailability of the counsel for the complainant on account of his engagement in Bar election process, the reason for absence of the counsel for the complainant and inability to conduct cross-examination with the respondent was justified, hence under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the complainant to cross-examine the respondent. Hence, the order impugned dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Court below stands quashed and set aside.

7. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12.05.2026. The respondent is also directed to remain present before the Trial Court on the next date i.e. on 12.05.2026 for the purpose of his cross-examination and it is expected from the Trial Court to do the needful exercise on the said day. In case cross- examination is not completed on the next date because of paucity of time, then the Trial Court shall list the matter on a sh