Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Note:
Cross-examination - Whether Court can impose time limit upon cross-
examination--Unnecessary, irrelevant and rambling cross-examination,
Court's control over.
As a general rule, the Court would not be justified in imposing a time limit
upon the cross-examination of a witness. But the Court may, in the course of
a trial, come to the conclusion that the cross-examination has been
unnecessary or irrelevant or even rambling, and in such a case the Court has
power to control the cross-examination of a witness by counsel of the
opposite party. Such power should be exercised in a reasonable way.
Vassiliades v. Vassiliades [1945] A. I. R. P.C. 38, Raj Kumar Sen Chowdhury v.
Ram Sundar Shaha (1931) 34 Bom. L. R. 526, P.C., Emperor v. Rahimatalli
(1919) 22 Bom. L. R. 166, Queen-Emp. v. Sayad (1887) Unreported Cr. C. 344
and William Smallman (1914) 10 Crim. App. R. 1, 3, referred to.
ORDER
1 . The opponent, who is the Home Minister of Saurashtra, has filed against the
applicant, an author and publisher, a complaint for an offence of defamation under
Section 500, Penal Code. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate is trying that case and
in the course of trial the opponent has been examined-in-chief. The cross-examination
of the opponent was commenced on 23-11-1954, when the applicant himself cross-
examined the opponent for four hours. The cross-examination was continued on 24-11-
1954, and Mr. 1. C. Dalai appearing for the accused-applicant cross-examined the
opponent for two hours and forty minutes on that day. The cross-examination was then
continued on the next day i.e., on 25-11-1954, and the cross-examination lasted for
two hours. The cross-examination was again continued on 26th November, and it went