AIR 2019 SC 721 ::2019 Cri L J 1516 (SC) ::2019 Cri LJ 1516 ::AIR 2019 SC (Criminal) 620 ::AIROnline 2018 SC 400 ::(2019) 1 AllCriLR 316 ::2019 (13) SCC 297 ::(2018) 4 Crimes 288 ::(2019) 6 Mh LJ (Cri) 240 ::(2018) 4 Ker LT 783 ::(2018) 4 JLJR 369 ::(2019) 2 Ker LJ 398 ::(2018) 4 Pat LJR 374 ::(2019) 1 Orissa LR 159 ::(2018) 4 CgLJ 479 ::(2018) 192 AllIndCas 212 (SC) ::(2018) 192 AllIndCas 212

Supreme Court Of India

(From: Kerala)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra , JJ

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974) , S.231— Deferral of cross-examination - Guiding principle - Party seeking deferral must give sufficient reasons to invoke exercise of discretion by Judge - Deferral cannot be asserted as matter of right. Norm in any criminal trial is for the examination-in-chief of witnesses to be carried out first, followed by cross-examination, and re-examination if required, in accordance with Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., however, confers a discretion on the Judge to defer the cross-examination of any witness until any other witness or witnesses have been examined, or recall any witness for further cross-examination, in appropriate cases. Judicial discretion has to be exercised in consonance with the statutory framework and context while being aware of reasonably foreseeable consequences. The party seeking deferral under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. must give sufficient reasons to invoke the exercise of discretion by the Judge, and deferral cannot be asserted as matter of right. There cannot be a straitjacket formula providing for the grounds on which judicial discretion under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised. The exercise of discretion has to take place on a case-to-case basis. The guiding principle for a Judge under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether prejudi....