Right to cross-examine prosecution witness cannot be denied without fair opportunity; prejudice vitiates closing of defence evidence.

An accused in a criminal prosecution must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the complainant's witness before that evidence is treated as complete or relied upon. Where the complainant proceeds on preliminary evidence without an effective chance for the defence to invoke Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the trial procedure bypasses safeguards relevant to Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, serious prejudice to the defence results. The order closing cross-examination was therefore unsustainable, and the proceedings were to continue only after granting the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused could be denied the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant's witness for not filing an application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the complainant later chose to rely on preliminary evidence and the accused had not been given a fair opportunity to seek recall for cross-examination.

Analysis: In a criminal prosecution, the accused is entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witness unless that right is waived or effectively lost after a fair opportunity is afforded. A witness statement cannot be treated as complete or finally relied upon without affording the adverse party a reasonable chance of cross-examination. On the facts, the complainants chose to rely on the preliminary evidence at a stage when the accused was absent and no effective opportunity had been given to invoke Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The procedure adopted by the trial court was found to have bypassed the safeguards indicated for trial under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and resulted in serious prejudice to the defence.

Conclusion: The order closing the right of cross-examination was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The accused was held to have been denied a valuable defence right, and the proceedings were directed to continue only after granting a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the complainant's witness.

Ratio Decidendi: Before a prosecution witness's testimony can be relied upon, the accused must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine, and denial of that opportunity vitiates the order closing cross-examination.

---