2012 (4) TMI 808 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of certain questions during cross-examination.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition against an interlocutory order.
3. Scope of cross-examination and the judge's discretion in disallowing questions.

Summary:

Disallowance of Certain Questions During Cross-Examination:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Ld. Special Judge dated 12.01.2012, which disallowed questions during the cross-examination of prosecution witness PW 12. The questions disallowed were "Do you have a mobile phone?" and "Do you pay service tax on the phone bill of your mobile phone?" The petitioner argued these questions were relevant to demonstrate the government's revenue from mobile telephony through Service Tax during the tenure of co-accused A. Raja as Telecom Minister and to show the witness's awareness of Service Tax. The court, however, found these questions irrelevant to the subject matter or the creditworthiness of the witness.

Maintainability of the Writ Petition Against an Interlocutory Order:
The respondent CBI contended that the order of the Ld. Special Judge was interlocutory and not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Citing precedents, it was argued that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not ordinarily entertained against interlocutory orders. The court agreed, referencing the Supreme Court's stance that High Courts should not interfere with findings within the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals unless findings are perverse or result in manifest injustice.

Scope of Cross-Examination and Judge's Discretion:
The court emphasized that under Chapter X of the Evidence Act, the judge has the responsibility to monitor cross-examination and exclude irrelevant evidence. Sections 146 to 153 of the Evidence Act empower the judge to forbid questions intended to annoy or insult the witness. The court noted that while cross-examination can go beyond examination-in-chief, it must relate to relevant facts. The judge has the discretion to disallow questions that are irrelevant, vexatious, or intended to harass the witness. The court found that the disallowed questions did not have any bearing on the subject matter or the witness's credibility and upheld the Ld. Special Judge's decision.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the court found no illegality or infirmity in the Ld. Special Judge's order. The judgment emphasized the judge's discretion in controlling cross-examination to prevent harassment and ensure relevance. A copy of the order was directed to be circulated among all judges of the subordinate judiciary.