Re-Examination Is Right Of Parties, Doesn't Require Court's Permission Unless New Relevant Facts Are To Be Introduced: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held re-examination is a right of parties and does not require court's permission unless a new fact or issue which is relevant to the matter is required to be introduced.The petitioner being the complainant had filed a plea before trial court under Section 138 of N.I. Act against respondents 1 and 2. The examination-in-chief of PW.1 was held in 2012 and that thereafter cross-examination could not be performed; ultimately it was concluded in 2025 in five intervals.After completion of cross-examination, the petitioner filed an application for re-examination. The trial court after hearing the parties rejected the application for re-examination. Against this petitioner moved the high court. Justice Subhendu Samanta in his order noted that under Section 138 of Evidence Act there shall be first examination-in-chief, then cross-examination, thereafter, if the party so desires, a re-examination. It noted that under the provisions it has been specifically clarified that re-examination shall be directed to explain the matters referred in crossexamination. "Re-examination of any witness is a right of party as well as the right of Court to be done at the end of cross-examination. There is no specific direction that re-examination can be done only in discretion of Court, the word “shall” is codified in first portion of direction; in the later portion, it is specifically mentioned that if new matter is required to be introduced to elicit the truth in the matter or explain any new issue properly, the direction/permission of the Court is required, and at that score adverse party may further cross-examine on that matter.So after scanning the entire codified direction as well as the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rammi @ Rameshwar's case supra, it appears that the purpose of re-examination is always available to the party who called the witness if it relates to only regarding explanation of the matters referred in cross-examination. At that time no permission of Court is required. The permission of Court is only required if new fact or issue (must be relevant) is required to be introduced. In this case, it appears that cross-examination was held much later of examination-in-chief that too after long five occasions".Thus, without going into the merit of the case, the court said that petitioner's re-examination is required to be conducted then trial court shall not restrain the petitioner.The petitioner argued that examination-in-chief was held in 2012. Matter was stalled for several reasons for a long time. Thereafter the cross-examination was held by the respondents and completed in 2025. At this juncture to elicit truth and to explain matter referred to cross-examination, petitioner may be permitted to re-examine PW.1. He further submitted that the purpose of re-examination is required to elicit the truth.The respondents submitted that the matter may be remanded back as the order passed by trial Court has not assigned sufficient reasons.The court thus set aside the trial court order. The plea was disposed of. Case title: PV RAJALAKSHMI v/s G V SRINIVAS RAO & OthersCRIMINAL PETITION NO: 319/2026Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Namineni Pavan KumarCounsel for respondents: Advocate V Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Public ProsecutorClick Here To Read/Download Order

Re-Examination Is Right Of Parties, Doesn't Require Court's Permission Unless New Relevant Facts Are To Be Introduced: AP High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags