Kerala HC Permits Accused to Cross-Examine in NI Act Case to Ensure Fair Trial

In a significant move to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair trial, the Kerala High Court permitted an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 case, despite previous procedural lapses. The Court emphasized that providing an opportunity to the defense to confront witnesses is essential for 'complete justice.'

Justice C.S. Dias, sitting as a single judge bench, adjudicated upon the petition challenging an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Muvattupuzha. The petitioner, an accused facing trial for a cheque bounce case, sought to overturn the Trial Court's refusal to allow the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses (PW1 to PW3). While noting the initial lack of cooperation from the petitioner's side, the High Court adopted a 'lenient view' after the petitioner demonstrated bona fides by paying the costs previously ordered by the court.

Ensuring Fair Trial Over Procedural Technicalities

The Court observed that even in instances where the defense had previously failed to cross-examine witnesses, the interest of justice might necessitate granting another opportunity if the party shows sincerity. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In light of the above sequence of events and the fact that the petitioner has already shown her bonafides by paying cost to the 2nd respondent, I take a lenient view in the matter by permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the PWs1 to 3 on the next posting date, which will do complete justice to both sides."

Trial Court Directed To Conclude Proceedings Expeditiously

Recognizing the age of the complaint, which dates back to 2022, the High Court coupled its relief with a mandate for a speedy trial. The Court has the following directions:

"In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C by setting aside Annexure-A2 order and direct PWs 1 to 3 to be present before the Trial Court on 24.06.2026, on which date, the learned counsel for the petitioner shall cross-examine the said witnesses. Thereafter, it would be upto the Trial Court to issue summons to PW4 and cross-examine him. Considering the fact that the complaint is of the year 2022, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose the complaint, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from today."

Background:

The dispute originated from a complaint filed by the second respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses. However, the petitioner’s counsel was not ready for cross-examination on multiple dates, leading the Trial Court to close the evidence. The Trial Court's report indicated that the complainant was 76 years old and the defense had refused to cross-examine even after adjournments on payment of costs.

When the matter reached the High Court, the petitioner argued that cross-examining PWs 1 to 3 on the same day was essential to confront them with contradictions, citing principles from Kalyani Baskar v. M. S. Sampoornam ( "(2007) 2 SCC 258": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 1201) and Natasha Singh v. CBI (State) ( "(2013) 5 SCC 741": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 312) to support the right of the accused to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The High Court initially stayed proceedings on the condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 15,000 as costs to the complainant. Upon confirmation of the payment and the complainant’s lack of objection, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and restored the opportunity for cross-examination.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.MC NO. 3619 OF 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:KER:45056
Case Title: Leena Roy v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri. Gautham Krishna E.J., Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Sri. M.V. Rajendran Nair, Advocate; Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, Sr. Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 346