0

Pendency Of Revision Petition No Ground For Not Cross-Examining Before Trial Court: Rajasthan High Court

In the case of Bheru Lal v. State Of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 320/2021), Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed that pendency or not pendency of a revision petition is not a ground for a party to avert cross-examination before the trial court. The clarification was made by the Justice in the plea moved by Bheru Lal in connection with a case under Income Tax Act, stating that his right to cross examination was closed.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Bheru Lal stated that he sought one more opportunity for cross-examination on cost. The respondent’s counsel vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to make the necessary cross-examination but he has failed to do and has been making excuses before the trial court regarding the pendency of the revision petition and thus the delaying in whole proceeding. However, the court, in the interest of justice, granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to complete the necessary cross-examination on the next date already fixed by the trial court.

JUDGEMENT:

Court observed, “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the firm opinion that pendency or not pendency of the revision petition is not a ground for not cross-examining. However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner, who shall complete he necessary cross-examination on the next date as already fixed by the learned trial court.” The court clarified that such cross-examination shall be permitted only after the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Such cost shall be released to the respondent no.2. Furthermore, the court also opined that no further opportunity shall be granted, in case the petitioner fails to utilize the same, and the present order shall automatically stand nullified thereafter. The court also clarified that the pendency of the revision petition shall not make any impact upon the cross examination.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANAGHA K BHARADWAJ

CLICK HERE TO VIEW JUDGEMENT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat