Limits on cross-examination upheld where irrelevant and harassing questions were properly excluded by the trial court.

Cross-examination under the Evidence Act is broad, but it remains limited to relevant facts and matters affecting a witness's credit. The court may exclude irrelevant, vexatious, indecent, scandalous, or harassing questions and regulate cross-examination to prevent bullying or oppression. Questions that do not bear on the trial's subject matter or the witness's credibility may be disallowed in the court's discretion, and interlocutory regulation of cross-examination will not ordinarily be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent manifest illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The trial court's refusal to permit the disputed questions was upheld as the questions were irrelevant and beyond the permissible scope.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order disallowing certain questions in cross-examination of a prosecution witness.

Analysis: The scope of cross-examination under the Evidence Act extends beyond the examination-in-chief, but it remains confined to relevant facts and to matters legitimately affecting the credit of a witness. The court has a duty to exclude irrelevant, vexatious, indecent, scandalous, or harassing questions and to control the conduct of cross-examination so that the witness is not bullied or unnecessarily oppressed. Questions that do not bear on the subject matter of the trial or the witness's credibility may be disallowed in the court's discretion. An interlocutory order regulating cross-examination is ordinarily not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is manifestly illegal, perverse, or results in miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The disallowed questions were held to be irrelevant and beyond the permissible scope of cross-examination, and the trial court's discretion to forbid them was upheld. Interference was declined.

---