Denial of Cross-Examination on First Default Deemed Improper: MP High Court Upholds Right to Fair Trial

Introduction

In Shyam Premchandani v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CRR No. 905 of 2025)[i], the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized the fundamental right of an accused to a fair trial, holding that denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a key prosecution witness, particularly on a first default can severely prejudice the defence and constitutes procedural impropriety. In view of this, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order that had closed the accused’s right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (‘IO’), directing a conditional opportunity to do so.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, Shyam Premchandani, was facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2023 before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas. On 19.02.2025, the IO appeared for the first time in the said trial. The petitioner’s associate counsel, although present and able to cross-examine another witness (ASI Ram Naresh Sharma), sought adjournment for cross-examining the IO due to the senior counsel’s unavailability. The trial court vide order dated 19.02.2025 (‘Impugned Order’) denied the request, citing pendency and the case’s age and closed the right of cross-examination. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the High Court under s. 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with s. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

Held:

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances the Hon’ble High made observations and held as follows:

• The right to a fair trial includes the right to effectively cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
• Closure of cross-examination on the first opportunity despite reasonable grounds amounts to procedural harshness and impairs the accused’s right to defence.
• The Impugned Order passed by the trial court was found to suffer from impropriety and lack of judicial fairness.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Impugned Order and directed the trial court to provide one final opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the IO, subject to:

• Payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost for re-summoning the witness within seven working days.
• The trial court’s liberty to proceed with the matter if the opportunity is not availed.

Analysis / Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the legal principle that procedural fairness is intrinsic to the concept of a fair trial. While courts are rightly concerned with delays and case backlog, such considerations cannot override constitutional safeguards afforded to an accused. The High Court’s intervention is a reminder to trial courts that procedural defaults, particularly isolated or justified ones must not result in irreversible prejudice to the defence. By permitting a conditional opportunity for cross-examination, the High Court struck a balance between judicial efficiency and natural justice. The decision upholds not only the rights of the accused but also serves to enhance the credibility of the judicial process.

[1]  2025:MPHC-IND:12173

Authored by Ascend Legal Editorial Team. The opinions expressed are personal and do not constitute any legal advocacy.