The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that deferring the cross-examination of a prosecution witness until after all other prosecution witnesses have been examined violates the accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial. This order, issued under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS, clarifies that procedural delays in cross-examination, even if framed as administrative convenience, cannot override statutory and constitutional safeguards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Geeta, is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 205/2025 arising from a criminal complaint under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the prosecution examined its first witness, Virendra. Immediately after the conclusion of his chief examination, the accused filed an application under Section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to cross-examine Virendra without delay. The trial court, however, deferred the cross-examination until after the chief examination of four other prosecution witnesses - Kuldeep, Geeta, Mukesh, and Sonu - were completed.
Key Facts
- The prosecution witness Virendra completed his chief examination on or before 14.05.2026
- The application for immediate cross-examination was filed on 14.05.2026
- The trial court passed the impugned order on 15.05.2026, deferring cross-examination
- The order did not record any reasons for the deferral beyond general administrative convenience
- No application for adjournment or extension was filed by the prosecution
- The accused is not in custody and is appearing through counsel
Procedural History
- 14.05.2026: Accused files application under Section 254 BNSS for immediate cross-examination of Virendra
- 15.05.2026: 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, passes order deferring cross-examination until completion of chief examination of four other prosecution witnesses
- 28.05.2026: Petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS filed before the High Court, Gwalior Bench
- 08.06.2026: Hearing before Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court’s order directly contravenes the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Rasheed (2019) 13 SCC 297, which held that cross-examination must follow immediately after chief examination unless exceptional circumstances exist. He further cited this Court’s own unreported judgment in Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (31.03.2026, Cr.R. No. 1096/2026), which reiterated that delay in cross-examination prejudices the accused’s right to effectively challenge testimony and undermines the truth-finding function of trial.
For the Respondent / State
The Public Prosecutor did not contest the petitioner’s submissions. He acknowledged that the trial court’s order failed to consider the binding precedents and conceded that the deferral was legally untenable.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 15.05.2026 and a direction to the trial court to permit immediate cross-examination of witness Virendra in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) permits the trial court to defer cross-examination of a prosecution witness until after the chief examination of all other prosecution witnesses, absent any compelling reason.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on State of Kerala v. Rasheed, where the Supreme Court held that cross-examination must follow the chief examination without unnecessary delay, as it is a statutory right under the Code and essential to the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court in Rasheed emphasized that delay may lead to memory fade, witness collusion, or loss of opportunity to impeach credibility. The petitioner also cited Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha, where this Court held that deferral without reasons violates the principle of audi alteram partem and renders the trial procedurally unfair.
For the Respondent / State
The State did not advance any counter-argument. It accepted that the trial court erred in not applying the settled law and conceded that the impugned order was unsustainable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the trial court’s order was passed without any reference to the binding precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court. The order contained no reasoning, no finding of exceptional circumstances, and no balancing of the accused’s rights against procedural convenience.
"The right to cross-examine a witness immediately after his chief examination is not a mere formality; it is a substantive right essential to the adversarial process and the accused’s right to defend himself."
The Court noted that Section 254 BNSS, which replaces Section 244 CrPC, mandates that cross-examination shall follow the chief examination unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, permits otherwise. The trial court recorded no such reasons. The Court further held that the precedents in Rasheed and Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha are not merely persuasive but binding on subordinate courts.
The Court rejected the notion that deferring cross-examination to "complete the prosecution case" is a legitimate procedural strategy. Such an approach transforms the trial into an inquisitorial exercise, undermining the accused’s ability to test evidence as it is presented.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, is set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the application under Section 254 BNSS afresh, strictly in accordance with State of Kerala v. Rasheed and Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. The cross-examination of witness Virendra must be permitted immediately upon completion of his chief examination, unless the trial court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, finds exceptional circumstances justifying delay.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cross-Examination Cannot Be Delayed for Administrative Convenience
- Practitioners must immediately challenge any order deferring cross-examination without recorded reasons
- The burden now lies on the prosecution to justify delay - not on the accused to prove prejudice
- Any order that delays cross-examination beyond the same day or next court date without justification is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC
Precedents Are Binding Even in Unreported Form
- Unreported judgments of the High Court, if cited and relied upon, constitute binding precedent for subordinate courts
- Trial judges must routinely consult and apply both reported and unreported judgments of their own High Court
- Failure to do so renders orders liable to be set aside on revision or writ
Section 254 BNSS Requires Procedural Rigor
- The new BNSS regime demands stricter adherence to procedural timelines
- Courts must record reasons for any deviation from immediate cross-examination
- Failure to record reasons invalidates the order, regardless of outcome
