Closing cross-examination on a witness’s first appearance without reasonable opportunity violates fair-trial rights.

The petitioner challenged the Special Judge, NDPS Act’s orders dated 20 and 21 August 2026, which closed his opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses Omprakash Singh (PW-5) and Anoop Dhakad (PW-6).

The accused were present by video-conference when PW-5’s examination-in-chief was recorded, but no counsel appeared; the opportunity to cross-examine him was closed.

On the following day, after PW-6’s examination-in-chief, the defence sought an adjournment on medical grounds, but the opportunity to cross-examine him was also closed.

The petitioner argued that cross-examination was necessary to test the prosecution evidence concerning seizure and handling of the contraband; the State opposed the revision.

Whether the Trial Court’s closure of the opportunity to cross-examine PW-5 and PW-6 on their first appearance denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend himself.

Whether the impugned orders should be set aside and the witnesses recalled for cross-examination.

The revision was brought under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the principle that an accused’s right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental aspect of the fair-trial guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Cross-examination enables the defence to test the veracity, credibility and reliability of prosecution evidence; closing that opportunity without a reasonable chance to exercise it may be inconsistent with a fair trial, particularly in a serious NDPS prosecution.

The Court found that PW-5’s cross-examination was closed when the accused were present by video-conference but their counsel did not appear, and that PW-6’s cross-examination was closed despite an adjournment request on medical grounds.

Given the importance of cross-examination to the defence and the seriousness of the NDPS case, the Court concluded that the petitioner should receive an effective opportunity to question both material witnesses.

It directed the Trial Court to recall both witnesses and afford the petitioner a full and effective opportunity to cross-examine them.

The petitioner and counsel must complete cross-examination when the witnesses attend for that purpose; no further adjournment may be granted for it.

The revision was allowed and disposed of accordingly.