'Denial Of Adequate Opportunity To Cross-Examine Prosecution Witness Seriously Prejudices Accused's Right To Defence': Madhya Pradesh HC

In doing so, the Court opined that the closure of right to cross-examine on first opportunity was 'harsh' and 'improper'.

A single bench of Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgoankar observed, “The right to fair trial is one of the fundamental guarantee of the rule of law, aimed at ensuring administration of justice. Fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove defence by cross examination of prosecution witness. Denial of adequate opportunity to cross-examine a material prosecution witness may seriously prejudice the right to defend of the accused. The closure of right to cross-examine the Investigation Officer on first opportunity appears to be harsh and improper. The impugned order suffers from impropriety, therefore, exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 is needed to ensure propriety of the proceedings and a fair trial.”

The Court was hearing a criminal revision of an order passed by a Sessions Judge whereby the right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case was closed on default of the accused to cross-examine him.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that that the examination-in-chief of Inspector/IO was recorded and at the stage of cross-examination, accused made a request that Senior Counsel was not available to cross-examine the witness, therefore, an opportunity be granted to cross examine the witness on the next date of hearing. However, the Trial Court rejected the application and closed the right of the accused to cross examine the IO on the ground of delay. The counsel submitted that since it was solitary default on the part of the accused, therefore, if an opportunity to cross-examine of IO is granted, the cost incurred would be borne by the accused.

On the contrary, the counsel for respondent/State submitted that associate counsel present on the date of hearing cross-examined the other witness. However, he declined to cross-examine the IO and made a request for adjournment. Thus, it was contended by State Counsel that the Trial Court rightly rejected the request for adjournment.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that the denial of opportunity to cross examine a material witness would prejudice the accused's right to defend.

Thus, the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside.

“The accused / petitioner is granted an opportunity to cross examine Inspector Saleem Khan (IO), subject to stringent condition to ensure fair and speedy trial. It is directed that the trial Court shall afford single opportunity to the accused to cross-examine Mr. Saleem Khan (IO). In case of any default, trial Court may proceed with the trial, in accordance with law.”, the Court said.

Case Title: Shyam Premchandani Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Revision No. 905 Of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. Vinayak Bhalchandnai

Counsel for Respondent/State: Adv. Surendra Kumar Gupta