The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling, emphasizing that trial courts do not possess the authority to grant unlimited adjournments or endless indulgence to parties seeking to cross-examine witnesses. This judgment aims to curb delays in the judicial process and ensure timely disposal of cases.
Background of the Case
The ruling was passed in response to a criminal petition filed by an individual named Damalu Shankar Lamani. Lamani had approached the High Court challenging an order from a trial court. The trial court had rejected his application, which was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
This specific legal provision allows a court to summon any person as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if their evidence appears essential for a just decision. Lamani's application sought permission to cross-examine the complainant in his case, but the trial court denied this request.
The High Court's Stance on Judicial Discipline
While hearing the petition, the High Court bench underscored the importance of discipline in trial proceedings. The court observed that while the right to cross-examine is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial, it cannot be misused to deliberately prolong cases indefinitely.
The judges pointed out that trial courts must exercise their powers under CrPC Section 311 judiciously and not as a tool for granting endless opportunities. The principle is to ensure a fair trial, not an endless trial. Allowing repeated and unjustified adjournments for cross-examination hampers the cause of justice and burdens the judicial system.
Implications and Future Directives
This judgment sets a crucial precedent for lower courts across Karnataka. It directs trial judges to be more stringent in managing their court calendars and to set reasonable, firm deadlines for the completion of witness examination, including cross-examination.
The decision reinforces the judiciary's ongoing efforts to address case backlogs and improve efficiency. By preventing what it termed "endless indulgence," the High Court has sent a clear message that procedural rights must be balanced with the overarching need for timely justice. The ruling is expected to streamline proceedings and reduce unnecessary delays in the disposal of criminal cases.
The order was pronounced on December 31, 2025, marking a firm directive as the year concluded. The High Court's intervention in this matter highlights its supervisory role in ensuring that subordinate courts follow procedures that align with the swift delivery of justice.
