9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was referred to the Commissioner to record the evidence. Accordingly, the Commissioner recorded the evidence of the official liquidator and thereafter the case was set down for the evidence of the respondents. Sri M.M. Sundaresh, the first respondent in CA.No. 423/1998 was examined on 21-1-2003. Respondents 7 and 6 requested the Commissioner to permit them to cross-examine the said M.M. Sundaresh and also requested for cross-examination of respondents 4 and 5 in the event of they being examined. The said request of the respondents 7 and 6 was opposed by respondents 1, 4 and 5 contending that a co-respondent has no right to cross-examine the other respondent. Under those circumstances, the Commissioner called upon the respondents 7 and 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey have a right to cross-examine them not withstanding the fact that they have been arrayed as respondents in the proceedings. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 5 contends that in law a co-respondent has no such right. 7. Therefore the short question that arises for my consideration is whether a co-respondent can cross-examine the other respondent, who has given evidence against him. 8. The essence of cross-examination is that it is the interrogation by the advocate of one party of a witness called by his adversary with the object either to obtain from such witness admissions favourable to his cause or to discredit him. Cross-examination is the most effective of all means for extracting truth and expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is settled law that when allegations are made against the party to the proceedings, before that evidence could be acted upon, that party should have an ample opportunity to cross-examine the person who had given the evidence against him. It is only after such an opportunity is given, and witness is cross-examined that evidence becomes admissible. In this regard it is useful to refer to passages in the law of evidence, by the learned authors on the subject. "Sarkar on Evidence, Eighth Edition p. 1141. 'No special provision is made in the Evidence Act for the cross-examination of the co-accused's or co-defendant's witnesses. But the procedure to be adopted may be regulated by the well-known rule that no evidence should be received again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties or in the evidence, there should exist conflict of the interest between them. Once it is demonstrated that their interest is not common and there is a conflict of interest and evidence has been adduced, affecting the interest of the co-defendant/co-respondent, then before the Court could act on that evidence, the person against whom the evidence is given should have an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, so that ultimately truth emerges on the basis of which the Court can act. Under these circumstances, there is no substance in the contentions of the respondents 1, 4 and 5 that a co-respondent has no right to cross-examine the other respondent. 12. Hence, I direct the Commissioner to permit the respondents 7 and 6 to cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
