High Court of Karnataka Allows Re-Cross-Examination of PW1 in Criminal Complaint for Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust — Right to Fair Trial and Effective Cross-Examination Upheld. The court set aside the trial court's order closing cross-examination and directed further cross-examination of PW1 to ensure a fair trial under Section 482 CrPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 04:19:01

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri K. Nagaraj, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 01-04-2024 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kolar, in C.C. No. 642 of 2009. The respondent, State Bank of India, had filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC against the petitioner, alleging offences under Sections 405, 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court took cognizance and issued summons. During trial, the petitioner's counsel sought to cross-examine PW1 (the bank manager, K.V. Sridhar Rao) but the trial court closed the opportunity for cross-examination. The petitioner contended that he was not given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine PW1, which violated his right to a fair trial. The High Court heard both sides and noted that the petitioner had not been given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The court held that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental part of a fair trial and that the trial court's order was unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to further cross-examine PW1 on the same day or on a date to be fixed, ensuring that the trial is concluded expeditiously.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Re-call of Witness - The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the trial court's order closing cross-examination of PW1, holding that the petitioner must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness to ensure a fair trial. (Para 4)

B) Criminal Trial - Right to Fair Trial - Cross-Examination - The court emphasized that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial, and denial of such opportunity without sufficient cause is unsustainable. (Para 4)

C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405, 406, 409, 420 - Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating - The complaint alleged offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating against the petitioner, and the court allowed further cross-examination of PW1 to enable the petitioner to effectively defend himself. (Para 3)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court's order closing the opportunity for cross-examination of PW1 without providing sufficient opportunity is sustainable and whether the petitioner is entitled to further cross-examine PW1.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 01-04-2024, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to further cross-examine PW1 on the same day or on a date to be fixed, and to conclude the trial expeditiously.

Law Points

Right to fair trial
Effective cross-examination
Section 482 CrPC
Opportunity to cross-examine
Re-call of witness

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:22522

CRL.P No. 4938 of 2024

2024-06-21

M. Nagaprasanna

NC: 2024:KHC:22522

Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda (for petitioner), Smt. Sadhana S. Desai (for respondent)

Sri K. Nagaraj

State Bank of India

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging trial court order closing cross-examination of PW1.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 01-04-2024 and to permit further cross-examination of PW1.

Filing Reason

The trial court closed the opportunity for cross-examination of PW1 without providing sufficient opportunity.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed the impugned order on 01-04-2024 in C.C. No. 642 of 2009.

Issues

Whether the trial court's order closing cross-examination of PW1 without adequate opportunity is sustainable. Whether the petitioner is entitled to further cross-examine PW1 under Section 482 CrPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he was not given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine PW1, violating his right to fair trial. Respondent opposed the petition, but the court found merit in petitioner's submissions.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to cross-examine a witness is a fundamental part of a fair trial. Denial of such opportunity without sufficient cause is unsustainable. The High Court under Section 482 CrPC can set aside such orders to secure the ends of justice.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 01-04-2024 passed in C.C.No.642 of 2009 by the I Additional civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Kolar. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under Sections 405, 406, 409 and 420 of the IPC and issues summons to the petitioner. The petitioner is not given an opportunity to cross-examine PW1. The right to cross-examine is a fundamental part of a fair trial. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to further cross-examine PW1 on the same day or on a date to be fixed by the learned Magistrate.

Procedural History

The respondent bank filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC in 2009, leading to C.C. No. 642 of 2009. The trial court took cognizance and issued summons. During trial, the petitioner's cross-examination of PW1 was closed by order dated 01-04-2024. The petitioner then filed this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC on 21-06-2024.