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

The petitioner is the accused in two complaints filed in 2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

During the trial, the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the complainant (CW1) was closed by the Trial Court due to repeated dilatory tactics and negligence.

Subsequently, the petitioner’s right to lead defense evidence (DE) was also closed for failure to pay costs and non-utilization of opportunities, a decision upheld by the Sessions Court in revision on January 28, 2026.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall the complainant for cross-examination, claiming inadvertence by previous counsel.

The Trial Court dismissed this application on February 17, 2026, citing the accused's sluggish conduct.

The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court of Delhi.

1. Whether the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, despite the accused's prior negligence, amounts to a violation of the right to a fair trial.

2. Whether the court should exercise its discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness when the trial is at the stage of final arguments.

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

cross-examination is an integral and indispensable component of a fair trial under the adversarial system, necessary to test the credibility and veracity of a witness.

this power must be exercised with caution and circumspection, and should not be used to enable a party to undo the consequences of their own negligence or deliberate dilatory tactics.

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s conduct was "completely sluggish and lackluster" and that he was responsible for his own predicament.

the Court observed that if the complainant’s testimony remained completely unrebutted and no defense evidence was on record, the outcome of the case would be a fait accompli (a foregone conclusion), potentially causing grave prejudice.

Balancing the need for a fair trial against the petitioner’s past conduct, the Court noted the "gracious concession" by the respondent’s counsel, who agreed to one final opportunity subject to heavy costs.

The Court reasoned that a single, strictly conditioned opportunity would serve the ends of justice without further delaying the 2020 matters.

This was subject to: (i) payment of Rs. 25,000 cost per case to the complainant; (ii) the cross-examination being concluded on the same day; and (iii) the petitioner waiving any right to lead defense evidence or seek further adjournments. The Court held that no further request for time would be entertained.