Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, accused in Sessions Case No. 174/2012 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge at Beed, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order dated 10 February 2014 rejecting their application (Exhibit 73) to defer the cross-examination of the first informant (PW3) until the examination of other witnesses was completed. The trial was in progress and witness summons had been served. The accused contended that immediate cross-examination would prejudice their defence. The trial court rejected the application by a cryptic order stating 'Read the application and say on A.P.P. Heard both sides. Perused the Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C. After considering the nature of offence, contents of this application as well as witness summons service report on record, it appears to me that this application is fit to be rejected therefore, I hold that, the application filed by the accused is fit to be rejected. Hence, this application is rejected.' The High Court observed that the order contained no reasons whatsoever and was a non-speaking order. The court held that under Section 231(2) CrPC, the trial court has discretion to permit deferment of cross-examination, but such discretion must be exercised judicially and by a reasoned order. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh speaking order after hearing both sides. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Deferment of Cross-Examination - Section 231(2) CrPC - Speaking Order - The trial court rejected the accused's application to defer cross-examination of a witness without assigning any reasons, merely stating it was 'fit to be rejected' - Held that such an order is unsustainable as it does not reflect application of mind and violates the requirement of a reasoned order (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order rejecting the application for deferment of cross-examination under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was legally sustainable when it failed to assign any reasons.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh speaking order after hearing both sides, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 231(2) CrPC
- deferment of cross-examination
- speaking order
- reasoned order
- prejudice to defence
