Cross-examination may be allowed despite dilatory conduct to ensure fair trial, subject to heavy costs.

The Petitioner was defending two complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving cheques of Rs. 4 lakhs each.

During the trial, the Petitioner's right to cross-examine the complainant and lead defense evidence was closed due to a persistent "dilatory," "sluggish," and "lackluster" conduct, including a refusal to pay previously imposed costs.

The Petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant for cross-examination, claiming negligence by previous counsel.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on February 17, 2026, citing the Petitioner's deliberate attempts to delay proceedings.

1. Whether the court should exercise its discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to allow cross-examination of the complainant despite the accused's prior negligent conduct.

2. Whether the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine would result in an unfair trial and grave prejudice to the accused.

The court primarily applied Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which empowers the court to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

This power must be exercised with "great caution and circumspection" and only for "strong and valid reasons".

The court also relied on the constitutional principle of a "fair trial," identifying cross-examination as an "integral and indispensable component" necessary to test the credibility and veracity of a witness.

The Court observed that while the Petitioner was undeniably responsible for his own "miseries" due to his lackluster approach and attempts to malign previous counsel, the total absence of cross-examination and defense evidence rendered the outcome of the case a fait accompli.

The Court balanced the Petitioner's history of dilatory tactics against the fundamental necessity of a fair trial.

It noted that the complainant, in a spirit of fairness, agreed to one final opportunity provided heavy costs were imposed and a strict timeline followed.

The Court determined that justice would be better served by allowing a single, final opportunity to cross-examine, provided the Petitioner waived his right to lead defense evidence and committed to immediate final arguments, thereby preventing further delays.

The holding was conditioned upon the payment of Rs. 25,000 as costs in each case, the conclusion of the cross-examination on the same day, the bar on leading any defense evidence, and an order that no further adjournments shall be entertained.

The petitions were disposed of accordingly.