BABLOO PASI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In S.T. No. 389 of 2005, State v. Babloo, under Section 302, I.P.C., pending in Fast Track Court No. V, Jaunpur, the counsel for the accused had been examining the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7, Anil Chandra Tiwari for 5 days. The trial Sessions Judge, got fed-up, and closed the cross-examination because he was of the view, that irrelevant and unnecessary questions are being asked, and the cross-examination has gone on, for too long.

(2.) THE accused has come upto this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. protesting against the closure of cross-examination.

(3.) OUR Procedure Code provides no time limit or specific guidelines about restricting cross-examination by advocates.