A Delhi court, while hearing a criminal revision, has observed that the process of cross-examination during court proceedings cannot be “misused” to harass the witness. Observing that the process of cross-examination is an important tool to elicit information, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar said a witness would have no protection at their disposal against “indecent” and “scandalous” questions asked during cross-examination if the magistrate order is considered interim and unchallengeable. “If the witness feels harassed and the trial court is unable to save him from harassment, there would be no remedy available to him. Thus, a witness would have no protection against indecent and scandalous questions or questions aimed to insult or annoy him and otherwise irrelevant questions aimed at harassing and delaying the trial,” the court observed. However, the court agreed to the contention that if the court starts accepting revision petitions against allowing or disallowing every question during the cross- examination, the trial would not proceed at all. The court also observed and cautioned that a trial court should not be much “assertive” — that the accused becomes handicapped in asking questions — or liberal that witnesses are harassed by irrelevant questions during cross-examination. The court was hearing a revision petition against a magisterial court order to petitioner Sunita Mittal, seeking production of her Income-Tax Returns (ITR) for the period 2005-06 to 2011-2012. The magisterial court was hearing a case pertaining to Negotiable Instrument Act, wherein, it was alleged that one Dilip Kumar had taken a loan of Rs 1.43 crore on October 24, 2011, from Mittal and had issued post-dated cheques which were later allegedly dishonoured on presentation. The court set aside the magisterial court order seeking production of I-T returns and said, “Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed with the direction to Metropolitan Magistrate to afford further opportunity for cross-examination to the accused in which the magistrate would allow only those relevant questions confined to repayment of the loan by the accused.”
