Interlocutory order on cross-examination limits revision, but writ relief may restore defence opportunity with costs and time-bound directions.

An order refusing adjournment and closing cross-examination of PW1 was treated as interlocutory because it arose during trial, did not determine substantive rights, and therefore was outside revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On writ review, however, the Court found that repeated adjournments, incomplete cross-examination, the advocate's illness, the pandemic period, and the need to balance defence rights with prejudice to the complainant justified restoring one further opportunity. The matter was allowed to proceed subject to costs and a time-bound schedule to complete cross-examination expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order rejecting adjournment and closing the cross-examination of PW1 was an interlocutory order so that revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not lie. (ii) Whether the order dated 16.08.2019 refusing adjournment and closing the cross-examination called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the order rejecting adjournment and closing the cross-examination of PW1 was an interlocutory order so that revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not lie.

Analysis: The order complained of was one passed in the course of trial on a request for time and the consequential closure of cross-examination. Such an order does not determine the substantive rights in the complaint proceedings and is purely procedural in nature. On the settled distinction between final and interlocutory orders, a procedural order of this kind falls within the category of interlocutory orders and is outside revisional scrutiny under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The order was interlocutory and revision would not lie.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dated 16.08.2019 refusing adjournment and closing the cross-examination called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The record showed repeated adjournments, but it also showed that the cross-examination had commenced and remained incomplete for reasons including the advocate's illness and the pandemic period. The accused had later deposited the interim amount, and the matter required a fair opportunity to defend while balancing inconvenience to the complainant. In these circumstances, the Court found that denial of further opportunity would not serve the ends of justice, though costs were necessary to compensate the complainant and the proceedings needed expeditious completion.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and further opportunity for cross-examination was granted subject to costs.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were permitted to continue with restoration of the opportunity to cross-examine PW1, conditional upon payment of costs and compliance with the time schedule fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An order refusing adjournment and closing cross-examination is procedural and interlocutory, but writ relief may be granted where refusal of further opportunity would unfairly prejudice the defence and the prejudice can be balanced by costs and time-bound directions.

---