Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 233 - HC - Indian LawsPrinciples of natural justice - petitioner s right to cross-examine the complainant was closed - issuance of non-bailable warrants - HELD THAT - It is apparent that mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall a witness. It is further discernible that no prejudice would be caused to an accused if relief of recalling a witness is denied, considering that the accused was given sufficient opportunity to examine the witness but he failed to do the same - At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. He submits that if permitted, the petitioner undertakes to examine the defence witnesses in one day. Doubtless, the petitioner is guilty of delaying the trial, however, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure. It entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused. It is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case. In furtherance of the above, adducing of evidence by the accused in support of his defence is also a valuable right and allowing the same is in the interest of justice - this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is allowed one last opportunity to lead defence evidence, subject to his examining the defence witnesses on one single day. It is directed that the matter be listed before the concerned Trial Court on 10.12.2021 for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for leading his defence evidence. The same shall however be subject to payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/- to be payable to the respondent, within a period of three weeks from today - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Petitioner's right to cross-examine the complainant and lead defense evidence. 2. Delay in trial proceedings and abuse of the legal process. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate closing the right to cross-examine the complainant and lead defense evidence. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the petitioner for dishonor of a cheque. The petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court multiple times, resulting in the closure of his right to cross-examine the complainant. The Court emphasized that a fair trial is crucial, granting the petitioner one last opportunity to lead defense evidence, subject to examining all defense witnesses in a single day. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within three months to expedite the proceedings. 2. The respondent opposed the petitioner's plea, citing delays caused by the petitioner in the trial proceedings. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that such powers should be exercised sparingly in cases of patent error or gross injustice. The Court referred to a previous case to outline the principles guiding the recall of witnesses, emphasizing that a mere change of counsel cannot be a ground for recall. Despite acknowledging the petitioner's delays, the Court balanced the rights of the accused with the need for a fair trial, granting one final opportunity while imposing a cost of ?10,000 on the petitioner. 3. The judgment focused on upholding the principles of fair trial and judicial oversight while addressing the delays caused by the petitioner. The Court balanced the interests of both parties, granting the petitioner a final opportunity to lead defense evidence within a specified timeframe to expedite the trial proceedings. The decision aimed to ensure justice while maintaining the efficiency of the legal process, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution in cases involving financial transactions and dishonored cheques.
|