- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. 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 up to 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 some times, inclined to linger the cross- examination endlessly, some times 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.;