2026:UHC:4377 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.1153 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mrs. Neetu Singh and Mr. Vinod Chandra, Advocates for the applicant. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Respondent no.2 instituted a complaint case against the applicant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. During the course of trial, the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 (the complainant) was recorded and the matter was thereafter fixed for his cross- examination on 26.08.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant commenced the cross- examination of P.W.1 on the said date. However, after some cross-examination had been conducted, the proceedings were adjourned till post-lunch session. It is submitted that, during the intervening period, learned counsel for the applicant suddenly fell ill and was unable to appear before the Court after lunch. Consequently, an application seeking a short adjournment for completion of the cross- examination of P.W.1 was moved before the learned trial Court. Nevertheless, vide order dated 26.08.2025, the learned trial Court closed the applicant's opportunity to further cross- examine P.W.1. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the Court below, praying for recall of P.W.1 and permission to complete his cross- examination. The said application was, however, rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide order dated 25.11.2025, primarily on the ground that the defence was causing delay in the proceedings and that the witness had travelled from another district for recording of his testimony. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that P.W.1 is the complainant himself and his 2026:UHC:4377 testimony constitutes a vital piece of evidence in the prosecution case. It is contended that denial of an effective opportunity to cross- examine such a material witness has caused serious prejudice to the defence. It is further submitted that the right of cross-examination is a valuable and substantive right, which forms an essential component of the principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. The closure of the applicant's right to cross-examine P.W.1 owing to the sudden illness of his counsel, followed by rejection of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. It is argued that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is intended to enable the Court to arrive at the truth and to ensure that no party suffers on account of any inadvertent or bona fide omission. He submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that permitting the recall of P.W.1 for limited cross-examination would neither have caused any irreparable prejudice to the complainant nor materially delayed the proceedings, whereas refusal of such opportunity has seriously impaired the applicant's right to effectively defend himself. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the application but could not dispute that the cross-examination of material prosecution witness had not been conducted on behalf of the applicant. 5. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the right of an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is not a mere procedural formality but a fundamental facet of the principles of natural justice and fair trial. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat & others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158, has emphasized that denial of fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses would amount to denial of fair trial. 6. Similarly, in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741, it has been held that recall of witnesses should be permitted if it is essential for a just decision of the case and if no 2026:UHC:4377 serious prejudice is caused to the other side. 7. The testimony of P.W.1, being the complainant himself, is of considerable significance to the adjudication of the case. The right of cross-examination is an integral facet of a fair trial and denial of an effective opportunity may result in prejudice to the defence. The applicant's counsel could not continue the cross- examination due to sudden illness, which appears to be a bona fide circumstance. In the interest of justice and to ensure a fair opportunity of defence, one final opportunity deserves to be granted to the applicant to complete the cross-examination of P.W.1. 8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair opportunity to the applicant, the present criminal miscellaneous application deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 26.08.2025 and 25.11.2025 passed by learned trial Court are hereby set aside. The application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. It is further directed that on the date fixed for his appearance, the applicant shall not seek any adjournment and the cross- examination of the said witness shall be concluded expeditiously. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.06.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393 398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351 E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.06.02 16:09:58 +05'30'