Barkat Ali Zaidi - (1.) -In S.T. No. 389 of 2005, State v. Babloo, under Section 302, I.P.C., pending in Fast Track Court No. V, Jaunpur, the counsel for the accused had been examining the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7, Anil Chandra Tiwari for 5 days. The trial Sessions Judge, got fed-up, and closed the cross-examination because he was of the view, that irrelevant and unnecessary questions are being asked, and the cross-examination has gone on, for too long.
(2.) THE accused has come upto this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. protesting against the closure of cross-examination. I have heard Sri D. N. Yadav, counsel for the applicant and Sri R. D. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. What has happened here is a common malice, and a source of constant friction, between the presiding Judge, and the defence advocate. Lawyers are sometimes, inclined to linger the cross-examination endlessly, sometimes with a view to harass the witness and in the process the poor Judge is also harassed.
(3.) OUR Procedure Code provides no time limit or specific guidelines about restricting cross-examination by advocates. That is a deficiency which needs to be rectified though none of the Law Commission has paid attention to this aspect.;