Bombay High Court Slams ‘Reckless’ Delay In Corruption Trial | No Cross-Order Stands, Petition Dismissed With ₹50,000 Cost For Wasting Court’s Time
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, Single Bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant, has dismissed a petition seeking to set aside a "no cross" order and recall a prosecution witness in a pending trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that the petitioner’s repeated failure to cross-examine the witness despite multiple opportunities demonstrated utter disregard for court proceedings. It directed the imposition of Rs. 50,000 as costs to be paid to the District Legal Aid Centre, Aurangabad, within four weeks, and instructed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months.
The petitioner, an accused in a trial under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, challenged the trial court’s order dated 8 January 2024 rejecting his application (Exh. 90) to set aside a "no cross" order and recall PW-2, the de facto complainant, for further cross-examination. The witness had been examined in chief in 2018. Cross-examination commenced on 16 November 2018 but was not completed after the petitioner’s counsel sought an adjournment. Multiple subsequent opportunities were provided. On 22 April 2019, a "no cross" order was first passed. The prosecution thereafter examined five other witnesses.
On 24 November 2022, the petitioner filed an application (Exh. 71) to set aside the "no cross" order, which was allowed on 30 January 2023, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,500 per day to be paid to the witness. The witness attended court on 17 April 2023, but the defence again failed to conduct cross-examination, leading to his discharge. A further application (Exh. 80) for recall was filed on 4 May 2023 and allowed on 9 October 2023, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 1,500 per day to the witness. The petitioner failed to comply within the stipulated week, later seeking permission to make payment, which was allowed.
On 21 December 2023, the witness appeared at 11 a.m. as per the convenience of the petitioner’s counsel. The court recorded that various junior advocates appeared at different times stating that the main counsel would attend later, but he remained absent for most of the day. At 3.30 p.m., the witness requested discharge, and the court again passed a "no cross" order—the third such order in the case. No adjournment application was filed that day. The petitioner moved application Exh. 90 on 4 January 2024, citing counsel’s attendance at a religious ceremony and subsequent engagement before the High Court.
The State opposed the application, submitting that multiple chances had been wasted over a five-year period. The CBI’s Special Public Prosecutor argued that no leniency should be shown, noting that only the Investigating Officer’s cross-examination remained. The State and CBI relied on Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 5 SCC 668, stating the adverse impact of repeated adjournments on witnesses and trial proceedings.
The court examined the chronology of events, noting the petitioner’s repeated failure to utilise opportunities granted to cross-examine PW-2, despite two previous "no cross" orders being set aside. Justice Sant recorded: "Five years’ time is certainly not a reasonable time." The court observed that on 21 December 2023 the witness waited nearly five hours, during which different advocates appeared making inconsistent statements about the main counsel’s arrival. "The Court could not even manage the board since different junior advocates made different submissions throughout the day."
Referring to paragraph 36 of Swaran Singh, the court stated: "The observations are totally applicable to the present case. There is absolutely no justification for not examining the witness. In spite of passing no cross order twice even on third occasion the accused did not bother to cross-examine the witness." It recorded that sympathy in such circumstances would be misplaced and that "the accused has literally played with the Court. The act of accused in the present case shows utter disregard to the Court proceedings. The precious time of the Court is wasted because of the conduct of the litigant."
Justice Sant further noted: "If this Court shows sympathy, it would be misplaced sympathy... It would be a mockery of the Court by the Court itself. The Court cannot allow the litigant to take the proceedings lightly and still to show sympathy towards such persons." The conduct was described as "totally condemnable beyond words."
The court distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner, such as P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P. (AIR 2012 SC 2242) and Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2022 SC 3707), on the grounds that those cases involved genuine reasons or single applications, whereas here there was a consistent pattern of delay and non-compliance.
Justice Sant ordered: "The present petition is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only). The cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) to be paid to the District Legal Aid Centre, District Aurangabad within four (04) weeks from today." The court also directed: "As the trial is pending since 2018, the learned Trial Court is requested to conclude the trial within three (03) months from today." Appreciation was recorded for the assistance of the CBI’s Special Prosecutor.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Chaitali Choudhari-Kutti, APP for Respondent No. 1/State; Mr. Sachin S. Panale, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI/Respondent No. 2
Case Title: Shashikant s/o Vitthal Kothawade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:21075
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 730 of 2024
Bench: Justice Kishore C. Sant
