New Delhi, India — A court in Delhi criticized a defense attorney’s handling of a witness’s cross-examination in a case concerning the northeast Delhi riots, stressing the need for lawyers to better manage their schedules to avoid repeated requests for adjournments. The conflict arose when the lawyer sought to re-examine a witness due to previous interruptions caused by his commitments in another court.
The case, which involves 11 individuals including former councilor Tahir Hussain, revolves around charges of criminal conspiracy and promoting religious enmity, as laid out under the Indian Penal Code sections 120B and 153A. Currently, the case is at the witness examination stage, focusing on police and forensic experts.
During a recent hearing, advocate Mehmood Pracha requested the recall of a forensic expert for further cross-examination. He explained that he had been unable to complete this task previously as he had to attend a separate hearing at the Delhi High Court. However, the court, led by Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala, dismissed Pracha’s application.
The court pointed out that legal counsels must coordinate their cases amongst themselves and handle their courtroom commitments without repeatedly disrupting court proceedings. This was not the first instance of such a request from Pracha, as pointed out by Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey, who argued that the lawyer has a history of seeking similar adjournments.
Pramachala referenced an earlier situation in January when the same witness could not be fully cross-examined because Pracha was not present, leading to an initial adjournment. The witness was brought back later in the month for further examination, but due to another absence by one of Pracha’s associates, the cross-examination was concluded prematurely by the court.
The prosecution opposed Pracha’s application based on Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which stipulates that a lawyer’s engagement in another court is not sufficient grounds for delaying witness testimony.
This legal tussle underscores a larger issue within the judicial process, where the balance between a lawyer’s duty to multiple cases and the efficient progression of court proceedings remains delicate. The court’s criticism of Pracha’s time management skills serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges that come with handling high-profile cases involving numerous defendants and complex legal arguments.
Ultimately, the court’s decision to reject the application for re-examining the forensic expert might set a precedent for future cases, emphasizing the necessity for legal counsels to maintain diligent attention to their caseloads to ensure justice is served timely and effectively.
Disclaimer: This article is a creative rendition produced by OpenAI, incorporating derived facts and narrative elements. The facts and individuals mentioned may not accurately represent real events or people. To request content removal, updates, or corrections, please contact [email protected].