A final opportunity to complete cross-examination may be granted against costs where counsel’s delay is promptly explained.

The petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 7 May 2026 dismissing petitioner no. 1’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant’s witness, CW-1, for further cross-examination.

The right to further cross-examination had earlier been closed on 18 November 2023, but was reopened by an order dated 31 January 2024, granting the petitioners a further opportunity.

On 30 January 2026, the Trial Court again closed the opportunity after counsel was delayed in finding parking; counsel’s associates had sought a further passover, and counsel filed a recall application that same day.

The Trial Court’s dismissal of that application was challenged before the High Court.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to recall CW-1 for completion of cross-examination warranted interference, given the petitioners’ prior opportunities and the circumstances of counsel’s delay.

2. Whether the petitioners should be granted a final opportunity to cross-examine CW-1, and, if so, on what conditions.

The application for recall was made under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The Court’s reasoning reflects a balancing of the opportunity to complete cross-examination against the complainant’s interest in avoiding indefinite delay: a further opportunity may be allowed in the circumstances of the case, while inconvenience to the opposing party may be addressed through costs and directions limiting the scope and duration of cross-examination.

No precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged that the Trial Court’s concern about delay was understandable because cross-examination had taken place over several dates and an earlier closure had already been recalled to grant a final opportunity.

However, it accepted counsel’s explanation that parking difficulties delayed his appearance, noting that the recall application was filed on the same day as the closure, supporting the account that the petitioners intended to proceed with cross-examination.

Given counsel’s acceptance of costs, the Court considered that the complainant’s inconvenience could be addressed while allowing cross-examination to be completed.

The cross-examination was directed to take place on 7 October 2026 and be completed that day; the Trial Court was directed to prevent repetitive questions, and, if the petitioners failed to avail themselves of the opportunity, to proceed in accordance with law.

The order was not to be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits.