Cross-examination should not be denied solely for counsel’s absence on one hearing date.

The applicant challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 30 June 2026 closing his right to cross-examine the complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The closure followed the non-appearance of the applicant’s counsel.

The applicant submitted that the first date fixed for the complainant’s evidence was 24 February 2025 and sought one effective opportunity to cross-examine

Whether the applicant’s right to cross-examine the complainant should be restored despite the non-appearance of counsel on the scheduled date

Whether restoration of that right should be subject to conditions to prevent further delay in the Section 138 proceedings

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the procedural basis for the petition.

In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the right to cross-examine is an important component of a fair trial, but the proceedings must also be dealt with expeditiously; an opportunity may therefore be restored subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court considered that the right had been closed because counsel did not appear on one date and accepted that the applicant sought an opportunity to cross-examine without deliberate or inordinate delay.

Balancing the fair-trial importance of cross-examination against the need for expedition in Section 138 proceedings, it restored the opportunity on payment of costs and made it final and effective, with no adjournment except in exceptional circumstances beyond the applicant’s control.

The applicant must deposit ₹5,000 with the Indian Red Cross Society, Jabalpur, within 15 days and file proof of deposit with the Registry within that period.

The applicant may then cross-examine the complainant as a final and effective opportunity; the matter was remitted to the learned JMFC for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The amount is to be used for children in the State Government’s Child Care Institution/Children Home at Jabalpur, with the Collector required to report annually on its utilisation.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.