The Bombay High Court has imposed costs of ₹50,000 on an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act for repeatedly failing to cross-examine the prosecution’s key witness, despite being granted multiple opportunities over a period of five years. The court dismissed the accused’s petition challenging the trial court’s “no cross” order.

 

A single-judge bench led by Justice Kishore C. Sant was hearing the criminal writ filed by Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade, who sought to set aside the trial court’s refusal to recall PW-2, the de facto complainant. The accused had failed to cross-examine the witness on three separate occasions, even after the trial court had previously set aside two no-cross orders and granted relief to facilitate the cross-examination.

 

The petitioner contended that, as an accused, he was entitled to a fair opportunity and argued that when his advocate was absent, the court should have asked whether he wished to conduct the cross-examination personally. No such option, he claimed, was provided.

 

The High Court rejected these submissions, noting that the accused had been provided ample opportunities to examine the witness, but repeatedly failed to act. On the third occasion, the witness had to wait the entire day, and repeated postponements created administrative difficulties for the trial court, compelling it to pass the no-cross order.

 

“Merely claiming that the accused would suffer irreparable loss cannot be entertained in such cases. Showing sympathy here would be misplaced. The accused has played with the Court and demonstrated utter disregard for judicial proceedings. Precious court time has been wasted due to his conduct,” Justice Sant observed.

 

The Court further emphasized that granting leniency in such circumstances would encourage frivolous litigation practices and make a mockery of the judicial process.

 

“The Court cannot allow litigants to treat proceedings lightly and still expect sympathy. The accused’s actions are utterly condemnable,” the judgment stated.

 

Orders Passed

• The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000, payable to the District Legal Aid Centre, Aurangabad, within four weeks.

• The High Court directed the trial court to conclude the pending trial, which has been ongoing since 2018, within three months.

 

The case underscores the Court’s insistence on discipline in legal proceedings, holding litigants accountable for deliberate delays and wasting judicial time.