- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5575 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. LINGARAJU, S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT MEDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTS BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. SURESH.M.A, S/O DODDAANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 RESIDING AT MEDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONDITION TO DEPOSIT RS.20,000/- WITNESS BATHA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECALLING THE PW1, 3 TO 5 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 311 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 IN SPL.C.NO.113/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE FOR AN OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 324, 504, 506 OF IPC R/W SEC. 3(1)(r) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015 AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2026 WHERE ORDER DATED 05.02.2026 HAS BEEN RECALLED DUE TO NOT DEPOSITING THE WITNESS BATHA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: "Wherefore the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records in Spl.C.No.113/2021 pending on the file of The II Additional District Sessions Judge. Bangalore Rural District. Bangalore for an offence punishable under section 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code R/w Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act 2015 and set aside the condition to deposit Rs.20,000/- witness batha for the purpose of recalling the Pw1, 3 to 5 for the purpose of Cross Examination on application filed by the Petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and setting aside the order dated 04/03/2026 where order dated 05/02/2026 has been recalled due to not depositing the witness batha and to pass such other order/s or relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri. Rajesh A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner is the accused and respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in crime No.21 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 304, 323, 324 of the IPC and Sections - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said crime, leads to initiation of proceedings before the concerned Court, in Spl.C.No.113 of 2021. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on 05.01.2026 seeking recall of witnesses PW1 and PW3 to PW5 for the purpose of cross-examination. On 05.02.2026, the concerned Court allows the application filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the concerned Court reads as follows: "ORDER The application filed by the counsel for the accused under Section 311 Cr.PC is hereby allowed on deposit of witness batta of Rs. 4000/- each (including previous witness batta) and on the condition that the accused shall cross examine PW. 1, 3 to 5 on dates of hearing posted for the cross examination of respective witnesses, without seeking further adjournment on whatsoever ground. It is made clear that if the accused fails to deposit the witness batta of PW. 1 and 3 to 5 in the court on or before 20.02.2026 or if the accused fails to cross examine PW. 1, 3 to 5 on dates of hearing posted for the cross examination of respective witnesses, no further opportunity will be given in future for recall and cross examination of PW. 1, 3 to 5. Issue Witness summons to PW. 1. Call on 04.03.2026. Sd/- II AD & SJ 05.02.2026" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 The concerned Court, while allowing the said application, imposes a condition that, the petitioner should deposit witness batta of Rs.4000/- each for PW1 and PW3 to PW5, totalling to an amount of Rs.20,000/- on or before 20.02.2026, failing which the petitioner/accused, would not get any further opportunity, to recall and cross-examine the said witnesses. The petitioner being in financial crises, could not deposit the same. Subsequently, by order dated 04.03.2026, the concerned Court records that the petitioner/accused has forfeited his right to recall and cross-examine the witnesses, on account of his failure to deposit the witness batta. The order passed by the concerned Court reads as follows: "Accused is present. It is noticed that, even though this court has specifically directed in the its order dated 05.02.2026, accused has not deposited witness batha of Rs.4,000/- each to PW.1, 3, 4 and 5 in the court on or before 20.02.2026 and as such the accused has lost right to recall and cross examine PW.1, 3, 4 and 5. The deposit of witness batha within stipulated time is condition precedent for recall and cross examination of PW.1, 3, 4 and 5. Issue bailable warrant for Rs.2000/- to CW.18. Returnable by 23.03.2026. Sd/- II AD & SJ 04.03.2026" (Emphasis added at each instance) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 Aggrieved by this order and the condition imposed in the order dated 05.02.2026, directing payment of a total of ₹20,000/- towards witness batta, for the purpose of cross-examination of the witnesses, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at all. Opportunity had been granted earlier, but the opportunity was lost. It is the averment of the petitioner/accused that, he remained absent before the concerned Court on the date fixed for cross-examination of the witnesses, as he was unable to secure representation through an advocate of his choice. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner/accused is seeking further cross-examination, but the cross-examination for the first time, because cross-examination is a valuable right of an accused, which cannot be stifled by imposition of Rs.20,000/- as cost, for getting the witnesses for whom the cross-examination is yet to happen. The concerned Court ought not to have imposed the onerous amount of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 5. The Apex Court in a plethora of cases has recognized the right of cross-examination, as an integral safeguard available to an accused, for the purpose of a fair trial. I therefore deem it apposite, to quote a few. 5.1. In MOHD. HUSSAIN v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)1, the Apex Court emphasizes that cross- examination serves as the acid test for ascertaining the truth in a trial. The Apex Court observes as follows: "……… ……… ……… 13. It will, thus, be seen that the trial court did not think it proper to appoint any counsel to defend the appellant- accused, when the counsel engaged by him did not appear at the commencement of the trial nor at the time of recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused did not have the aid of the counsel in any real sense, although, he was as much entitled to such aid during the period of trial. The record indicates, as I have already noticed, that the appointment of the learned counsel and her appearance during the last stages of the trial was rather pro forma than active. It cannot seriously be doubted at this late date that the right of cross-examination is included in the right of an accused in a criminal case, to confront the witnesses against him not only on facts but also to discredit the witness by showing that his testimony-in-chief was untrue and unbiased. 14. The purpose of cross-examination of a witness has been succinctly explained by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 899] : (SCC p. 686, para 278) 1 (2012) 2 SCC 584 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 “278. Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines what cross-examination means and Sections 139 and 145 speak of the mode of cross-examination with reference to the documents as well as oral evidence. It is the jurisprudence of law that cross-examination is an acid-test of the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness on oath in examination-in-chief, the objects of which are: (1) to destroy or weaken the evidentiary value of the witness of his adversary; (2) to elicit facts in favour of the cross- examining lawyer's client from the mouth of the witness of the adversary party; (3) to show that the witness is unworthy of belief by impeaching the credit of the said witness; and the questions to be addressed in the course of cross-examination are to test his veracity; to discover who he is and what is his position in life; and to shake his credit by injuring his character.” 15. The aforesaid view is reiterated by this Court in Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 7 SCC 104 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 500] wherein it is observed: (SCC p. 117, para 24) “24. A right to cross-examine a witness, apart from being a natural right is a statutory right. Section 137 of the Evidence Act provides for examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re- examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers a right on the adverse party to cross- examine a witness who had been examined in chief, subject of course to expression of his desire to the said effect. But indisputably such an opportunity is to be granted. An accused has not only a valuable right to represent himself, he has also the right to be informed thereabout. If an exception is to be carved out, the statute must say so expressly or the same must be capable of being inferred by necessary implication. There are statutes like the Extradition Act, 1962 which excludes taking of evidence vis-à-vis opinion.” 16. In my view, every person, therefore, has a right to a fair trial by a competent court in the spirit of the right to life - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 and personal liberty. The object and purpose of providing competent legal aid to undefended and unrepresented accused persons are to see that the accused gets free and fair, just and reasonable trial of the charge in a criminal case. ……… ……… ……… 23. The prompt disposition of criminal cases is to be commended and encouraged. But in reaching that result, the accused charged with a serious offence must not be stripped of his valuable right of a fair and impartial trial. To do that, would be negation of concept of due process of law, regardless of the merits of the appeal. The Criminal Procedure Code provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to have the assistance of a counsel and the Criminal Procedure Code also requires the court in all criminal cases, where the accused is unable to engage counsel, to appoint a counsel for him at the expenses of the State. Howsoever guilty the appellant upon the inquiry might have been, he is until convicted, presumed to be innocent. It was the duty of the court, having these cases in charge, to see that he is denied no necessary incident of a fair trial. ……… ……… ……… 42. While holding the appellant guilty the trial court has not only relied upon the evidence of the witnesses who have been cross-examined but also relied upon the evidence of witnesses who were not cross-examined. The fate of the criminal trial depends upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the witnesses and, therefore, it is of paramount importance. To arrive at the truth, its veracity should be judged and for that purpose cross-examination is an acid test. It tests the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness on oath in examination-in-chief. Its purpose is to elicit facts and materials to establish that the evidence of the witness is fit to be rejected. The appellant in the present case was denied this right only because he himself was not trained in law and not given the assistance of a lawyer to defend him. Poverty also came in his way to engage a counsel of his choice. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 43. Having said so, it needs consideration as to whether assistance of the counsel would be necessary for fair trial. It needs no emphasis that conviction and sentence can be inflicted only on culmination of the trial which is fair and just. I have no manner of doubt that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person facing trial can be assured a fair trial only when the counsel is provided to him. Its roots are many and find places in manifold ways. It is internationally recognised by covenants and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, constitutionally guaranteed and statutorily protected." In the aforesaid case, the appellant therein was denied the benefit of a fair trial and effective legal assistance, as he was unable to engage a counsel of his choice owing to financial constraints. The Apex Court held that such inability, could not constitute a ground to deprive the appellant of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 5.2. Subsequently, in NOOR MOHAMMED v. KHURRAM PASHA2, the Apex Court was answering an identical situation, where a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had ordered the cross-examination of the accused therein to be denied, on non-compliance with the order directing deposit of amount under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Apex Court observes as follows: 2 (2022) 9 SCC 23 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 "……… ……… ……… 12. Before we examine the matter in issue, we may extract the relevant provision, namely, Section 143-A of the Act, which is to the following effect: “143-A. Power to direct interim compensation.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Court trying an offence under Section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant— (a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and (b) in any other case, upon framing of charge. (2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent of the amount of the cheque. (3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque. (4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant. (5) The interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) The amount of fine imposed under Section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section.” 13. After empowering the court to pass an order directing the accused to pay interim compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A, sub-section (2) then mandates that such interim compensation should not exceed 20% of the amount of the cheque. The period within which - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 the interim compensation must be paid is stipulated in sub- section (3), while sub-section (4) deals with situations where the drawer of the cheque is acquitted. Said sub-section (4) contemplates repayment of interim compensation along with interest as stipulated. Sub-section (5) of said Section 143-A then states “the interim compensation payable under this section can be recovered as if it were a fine”. The expression interim compensation is one which is “payable under this section” and would thus take within its sweep the interim compensation directed to be paid under sub-section (1) of said Section 143-A. 14. The remedy for failure to pay interim compensation as directed by the court is thus provided for by the legislature. The method and modality of recovery of interim compensation is clearly delineated by the legislature. It is well-known principle that if a statute prescribes a method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable. While relying on the decision of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : (1935-36) 63 IA 372] , a Bench of three Judges of this Court made the following observations in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358] . (AIR p. 361, paras 7-8) ……… ……… ……… 17. The provision concerned nowhere contemplates that an accused who had failed to deposit interim compensation could be fastened with any other disability including denial of right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. Any such order foreclosing the right would not be within the powers conferred upon the court and would, as a matter of fact, go well beyond the permissible exercise of power. 18. Since the right to cross-examine the respondent was denied to the appellant, the decisions rendered by the courts below suffer from an inherent infirmity and illegality. Therefore, we have no hesitation in allowing this appeal and setting aside the decisions of all three courts with further direction that Complaint Case No. 244 of 2019 shall stand restored - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 to the file of the trial court. The trial court is directed to permit the appellant to cross-examine the respondent and then take the proceedings to a logical conclusion. With these observations the appeal is allowed. 19. It is also directed that 20% of the cheque amount, namely, Rs 1,40,000 must be deposited by the appellant as interim compensation. The Registry is directed to make over a sum of Rs 1,40,000 to the trial court i.e. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamangala, Karnataka. The amount shall be kept in deposit in Complaint Case No. 244 of 2019 and shall abide by such orders as the trial court may deem appropriate to pass. Rest of the amount along with accrued interest, if any, shall be made over to the appellant. The Registry shall take out a pay order in the name of the appellant which shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant. 20. In the end, it must be clarified that we have not and shall not be taken to have reflected on the merits of the matter which shall be gone into after affording right to cross-examine as stated above." (Emphasis supplied at each instance) In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court resoundingly rejected the notion that even statutory non-compliance such as failure to pay interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can justify foreclosure of cross-examination. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is said to be an agriculturalist. In the light of the said fact and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 afore-quoted judgments, the condition in the order dated 05.02.2026, requiring the petitioner/accused to deposit ₹4,000/- each towards witness batta for the recall and cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3 to PW-5 deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the order dated 04.03.2026, also deserves to be set aside. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 04-03-2026, passed by the concerned Court stands quashed. (iii) The condition in the order dated 05-02-2026, to the extent of deposit of Rs.4000/- each (totalling to Rs.20,000/-), for the recall and cross-examination of PW1 and PW3 to PW5, passed by the concerned Court, is set aside. (iv) The application filed by the petitioner on 05-01- 2026 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court is allowed without any cost. (v) The concerned Court shall fix the dates of cross-examination of PW1 and PW3 to PW5 and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27877 CRL.P No. 5575 of 2026 regulate its procedure by taking the issue to its logical conclusion (vi) In the event, the concerned Court has proceeded further to frame the charges, the same shall not be done until the cross-examination as directed hereinabove is concluded. (vii) The concerned Court shall oversee that the plea of cross-examination should not become a ruse to drag the proceedings by the petitioner/accused. (viii) It is made clear that this would be the last straw of opportunity to the petitioner of this kind. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32