In Brief
In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a High Court properly reversed a trial court's order refusing to defer cross-examination of prosecution witnesses under Section 231(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused sought deferral claiming his defence strategy would be exposed. The Court held that deferral is discretionary, not a right, and requires specific reasons showing actual prejudice—mere assertion of strategy disclosure is insufficient. The High Court's reversal was improper as it provided no reasons and ignored that the accused were highly influential figures posing witness intimidation risks. The Court reaffirmed that the normal sequence is examination-in-chief followed by cross-examination, and laid down guidelines for trial courts on preparing case calendars and safeguarding witnesses when deferral is granted.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.