Summary
The Supreme Court restored refusal to defer cross-examination where the accused offered only a general assertion that his defence strategy would be disclosed. Section 231(2) conferred judicial discretion, not a right to wholesale postponement. Courts must balance demonstrated prejudice, tailoring of testimony, witness intimidation, memory and delay. The High Court supplied no reasons to reverse the trial judge. Practice directions required advance calendars, proximate examination dates and witness protection, without prejudging the trial.
Issues
- Whether the accused had shown sufficient grounds to defer cross-examination.
- What considerations govern discretion under Section 231(2).
- What scheduling safeguards should accompany deferral.
Provisions considered
- Section 231(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Deferral is discretionary and requires sufficient witness-specific or group-specific reasons. The governing inquiry balances prejudice to the requesting party against fair prosecution and trial integrity; a bald strategy-disclosure claim was insufficient here. (¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- The ordinary sequence is examination-in-chief followed by cross-examination and any re-examination. Departure under Section 231(2) is not a matter of right and requires sufficient reasons assessed case by case. (¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 10)
- Relevant illustrative factors include possible influence or threats, tailoring of later testimony, loss of witness memory, delay and future availability. The court must balance the accused’s rights and the prosecution’s ability to lead evidence. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Trial courts should, as far as possible, prepare and follow a detailed calendar after charges, schedule related witnesses close together, obtain deferral requests early, specify proximate deferred cross-examination dates and safeguard witnesses against intimidation. (¶¶ 9, 12)
- The request here rested on a bald assertion, while risks to witnesses required consideration. The High Court’s unreasoned reversal was set aside and the trial judge’s refusal restored; these observations had no bearing on the trial’s merits. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
State’s appeal allowed. High Court order set aside; Additional Sessions Judge’s rejection of deferral restored. Practice guidelines issued, with merits of the criminal trial unaffected.