The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to restrict the accused’s right to cross-examine the prosecutor, while noting that the man had gone “out of his way to harass » the woman by continually requesting adjournments for her trial. exam.

In doing so, the court emphasized that adjournments should not be granted just for the sake of adjourning and that the court should bear in mind the difficulties that witnesses may face.

A single judge chaired by Justice GS Ahluwalia in his order it was said: “It is true that the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss due to non-cross-examination of the prosecutor, but in this hot situation, only the petitioner is responsible, as he has made all possible efforts to harass the prosecutor by continuously asking for adjournments for his cross-examination.”

The court said that such delaying tactics on the part of the defense cannot be approved and the mere change of counsel cannot constitute a ground for adjournment since the petitioner would have been aware of the next court date. He said:

“It is therefore clear that the sole intention of the petitioner was to somehow harass the prosecutor by continually seeking adjournments. Such a delaying tactic, adopted by the applicant, cannot be approved. Further, the change of counsel cannot be a ground for adjournment because the petitioner already knew the next date before the trial court and, therefore, he should have made the necessary arrangements well before..If the applicant had decided not to instruct counsel and engage a new attorney solely for the purpose of seeking adjournments, then the applicant’s bad intentions cannot be upheld by taking a lenient position.“.

In this case, the High Court noted that the defense took several adjournments to cross-examine the prosecution. The prosecutor’s main examination took place on February 9; from the deposition sheet, it was found that the defense attorney/petitioner requested postponement of the cross-examination due to lack of preparation. The cross-examination was postponed by the trial court. The hearing was adjourned to February 23, but the applicant did not file the order form showing what happened on that date. Subsequently, on March 6, the applicant’s right to cross-examine the prosecutor was removed.

The court noted that it was clear from the order that the prosecutor was present while the petitioner’s attorney sought time to cross-examine. When the trial court ruled that plaintiff had to pay fees, “plaintiff’s attorney refused to pay the fee”; in these circumstances the right to cross-examine was removed. The petitioner opposed this order before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the applicant argued that if he were denied the right to cross-examine the prosecutor, he would suffer irreparable loss.

Referring to various judgments, the High Court said: “Therefore, it is clear that adjournments should not be granted just for the sake of adjourning and that the Court should be mindful of the difficulties that witnesses may face. On 9.2.2024, while the prosecutor was present and his examination-in-chief was recorded, it was the applicant who requested the postponement of the cross-examination on the grounds that his lawyer was not properly prepared. Although the matter was fixed on 23.2.2024, the order sheet dated 23.2.2024 was not recorded. Why this was not placed is only known to the requester. At any rate. Subsequently, when the case was resumed on March 6, 2024, the prosecutor was present and the petitioner has now hired a new lawyer, who also prayed for some time to cross-examine the prosecutor and also refused to allow him pay the costs.

Holding that the trial court did not err in suppressing the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the prosecutor, the High Court rejected the petitioner’s plea.

Case Title: Tulsi Ram Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case no: MISCELLANEOUS. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43730 of 2024

Click here to read/download the order