TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Can’t deny right to cross-examination on mere procedural oversights: HC

Setting aside the trial court's order, the trial Magistrate was ordered to give the petitioner a last chance to complete the cross-examination, subject to payment of Rs 10,000 as costs to be handed to the complainant

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the right to cross-examine a witness is a vital legal safeguard and cannot be denied on mere procedural lapses. The assertion came as Justice Manisha Batra set aside a trial court order closing the complainant’s cross-examination by the petitioner-accused in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Advertisement

“It seems that the petitioner has been careless in the entire process of cross-examining the complainant, but it cannot be forgotten that it is well settled proposition of law that no party should be condemned unheard. The court’s primary duty is to reach as close to the truth as possible by obtaining proper proof of such facts which would lead to a just and correct decision of the case, which cannot be done without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to complete the remaining cross-examination of the complainant,” Justice Batra asserted.

Advertisement

Going into the background of the matter, Justice Batra observed the petitioner was arrayed as accused. Neither the petitioner, nor his counsel, appeared for conducting remaining cross-examination of the respondent – a senior citizen sitting in the court premises since morning.

The petitioner took a specific plea that his counsel could not appear since he was appearing in some other court. The “proxy counsel” requested the court to take up the matter later in the afternoon, but the situation remained the same, resulting in cross-examination’s closure.

“The courts are under legal obligation to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the laudable object of doing substantial justice between the parties. The petitioner’s conduct is certainly indicative that he has been negligent in pursuing his case. However, the negligence of the petitioner is not of the kind which would leave him with such consequence. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed,” Justice Batra asserted.

Advertisement

Setting aside the trial court's order, Justice Batra directed the trial Magistrate to give the petitioner a last chance to complete the cross-examination, subject to payment of Rs 10,000 as costs to be handed to the complainant.

Advertisement
Tags :
#AccusedRights#ChequeBounceCase#CrossExaminationDenied#JusticeManishaBatra#LegalProcedure#LegalSafeguard#NegotiableInstrumentsAct#RightToCrossExamine#TrialCourtOrderpunjabharyanahighcourt
Show comments
Advertisement