Court may grant one final cross-examination opportunity to secure fair trial, subject to costs.

The applicant/accused was facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in SCNIA No. 516/2020 before the JMFC, Rewa.

The trial Court had earlier granted four opportunities to cross-examine the complainant, and the right was subsequently revived by the Revisional Court.

On 13.01.2026, the applicant’s counsel sought a short adjournment, stating that he was required to conduct the cross-examination of a doctor through video conferencing in another case at Satna.

The JMFC declined the request and again closed the applicant’s right to cross-examine the complainant, noting the previous opportunities and the availability of associate advocates named in the vakalatnama.

The applicant’s criminal revision against that order was dismissed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, on 11.03.2026.

The applicant thereafter invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of both orders and one final opportunity to complete the cross-examination.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of Court.

It also considered the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while recognising that cross-examination is an important facet of a fair trial and that an accused must ordinarily receive a meaningful opportunity to test the evidence against him.

However, the right to cross-examine cannot be exercised to secure repeated or indefinite adjournments or to delay proceedings.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant had already received four opportunities before the trial Court and had also been given an opportunity during the revisional proceedings, circumstances which ordinarily would not justify further indulgence.

Nevertheless, it found the explanation for 13.01.2026—counsel’s engagement in cross-examining a doctor through video conferencing in another matter and the request for only a short accommodation—not wholly lacking in justification.

Because complete closure of cross-examination could materially prejudice the applicant’s ability to defend the Section 138 prosecution, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS in favour of a narrowly tailored final opportunity.

To balance the applicant’s fair-trial interest against the need to prevent delay, the relief was made conditional upon payment of costs and completion of the entire cross-examination on one specified date without any further adjournment.

The High Court set aside the Revisional Court’s order dated 11.03.2026 and the JMFC’s order dated 13.01.2026 insofar as they closed the applicant’s right to cross-examine the complainant.

The applicant was granted one last and final opportunity to complete the cross-examination on a date fixed by the trial Court, with no further adjournment permitted.

If the applicant failed to avail that opportunity, the closure of the right to cross-examine would stand revived and the trial Court could proceed in accordance with law.

The costs were directed to be remitted to the Collector, Jabalpur, for the welfare of children residing in State-run Child Care Institutions/Children Homes, with annual reporting to the Juvenile Justice Committee Secretariat and the High Court.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.