https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285362 Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits deferment of prosecution witness cross-examination only in limited cases supported by sufficient, case-specific reasons. The normal criminal trial sequence remains examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination, and any departure must be justified by real prejudice, such as possible loss of memory, intimidation, undue influence, delay, or other concrete circumstances, while also respecting the day-to-day trial mandate under Section 309(1). A bare claim that defence strategy may be exposed is insufficient. On the stated facts, refusal to defer cross-examination was justified and the High Court's contrary order was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 09:35:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285362 Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits deferment of prosecution witness cross-examination only in limited cases supported by sufficient, case-specific reasons. The normal criminal trial sequence remains examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination, and any departure must be justified by real prejudice, such as possible loss of memory, intimidation, undue influence, delay, or other concrete circumstances, while also respecting the day-to-day trial mandate under Section 309(1). A bare claim that defence strategy may be exposed is insufficient. On the stated facts, refusal to defer cross-examination was justified and the High Court's contrary order was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285362