‘Such appeals will only delay the disposal of long-pending cases’

Unless courts are going to get strict while dealing with petitions filed by the accused to recall witnesses for cross examination, no solution can be found for the disposal of the long-pending cases and the docket explosion is going to continue to haunt the courts forever, the Madras High Court warned on Friday.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said, “On one hand, this court is insisting upon trial courts to dispose of long-pending cases and therefore the trial courts are getting strict while dealing with recall petitions. If such orders are interfered with in a casual manner by this court, in a way this court will also be responsible for delay in disposal.”

The observations were made while dismissing a petition filed by two accused in a cheating case booked by Central Crime Branch police in Chennai in 2007. After lying dormant for about five years, the trial in the case had begun only in 2012 and it took six years thereafter to examine just three prosecution witnesses.

While the first witness was examined in 2012, the second adduced evidence in 2013 and the third in 2018. Though the counsel for the accused, M. Vellaisay and K. R. Mayalagu, was present in the trial court during the examination of all three witnesses, he did not choose to cross examine any of them immediately after their examination in chief.

However, on October 3, 2018 the accused filed a petition before the trial court for recalling all three witnesses so that they could be cross examined but the trial judge rejected the plea after dubbing the entire exercise to be an attempt to drag the case for years together and hence the petitioners had approached the High Court seeking its indulgence.Holding that the trial judge had rightly dismissed the plea for recalling witnesses, Justice Venkatesh said though the Supreme Court had time and again reiterated that cross examination should be done on the same day of examination in chief, the dictum was being followed more in breach than in adherence before the trial courts.

“It is true that fair trial must be ensured to the accused persons. That does not mean the accused persons will examine witnesses on their own sweet will and pleasure. The accused cannot expect the courts to wait for them to take a decision as to when they will cross-examine the witnesses. If this practice is encouraged, the proceedings are bound to get delayed,” he observed.

The judge said that recalling a witnesses after considerable number of years might also lead to miscarriage of justice as they would have forgotten several details of a crime due to efflux of time. Further, repeated summons issued by the court for appearance might also discourage people from deposing as witnesses before courts of law, he added