Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has directed a Special CBI ACB (Anti-Corruption Bureau) Court in Pune to summon a witness from Chennai to Pune for cross-examination, prioritizing the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses over the inconvenience caused to the witness due to travelling.

Justice Bharathi Dangre was hearing a plea moved by one of the accused whose request for recalling a witness from Chennai to Pune was rejected.

One of the witnesses in the case was being cross-examined by the advocate of the accused.

On the date of the hearing, the advocate was not available as he had to appear in the Sessions Court of Sangli, and the assisting advocate was not present as he had viral symptoms.

The Special Judge was perturbed as the application was moved at the eleventh hour, and the witness had travelled from Chennai. Therefore, he rejected the application for adjournment.

Consequently, the accused could not examine the said witness, and a 'no cross' order was passed by the special court.

A similar situation had earlier occurred with another accused in the same case, wherein Justice Dangre directed the Special Judge to recall the witness upon payment of Rs. 10,000 by the accused.

While directing the recall of the witness from Chennai to Pune for cross-examination, the bench observed that the right to cross-examine a witness is a valuable right.

“There can be no doubt that the right to cross-examine a witness is the valuable right, but with the pressure of the trial to be concluded within minimal timelines, the Special Judge also cannot be said to be at fault, as when the witness had come from Chennai and the counsel for the accused gave preference to some other trial, he rejected the application. However, this has resulted in denial of an opportunity of cross-examining the complainant, who is the backbone of the entire trial,” the order reads.

Justice Dangre noted that when balancing the rights of the accused and the inconvenience caused to the witness, it would be appropriate to give more weight to the rights of the accused.

“I see the difficulty in once again recalling the said witness for the purpose of cross-examination, but if a balance has to be struck between the right of the accused and that of the prosecution, who shall prove its case through the witnesses, I deem it appropriate to give more weightage to the right of the accused rather than the slight inconvenience caused to the witness,” the order states.

The high court directed the accused to deposit Rs. 10000 with the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks and also directed the accused to pay for the travelling expenses of the witness.

The high court also said that if technically feasible, the witness should be cross-examined through video conferencing.

Therefore, the high court quashed the order of the Special Court rejecting the application to recall the witness and also stated that the proceedings should not be postponed on the fixed date.

Case title: Ravi Rao Addanki vs CBI EOW & Anr