Delhi court critiques lawyer’s time management over plea to re-examine witness

The lawyer had told the court he could not sufficiently examine the witness as he had to go to the Delhi high court for another matter

A Delhi court pulled up a lawyer for calling a witness again for cross-examination in a northeast Delhi riots case because he had to leave midway for another hearing in a separate court.

Delhi court critiques lawyer’s time management over plea to re-examine witness

Additional sessions judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma court slammed advocate Mehmood Pracha, and his two associates, who were representing one of the accused persons, Haseen alias Mullaji, in the case.

A total of 11 persons, including former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain, are booked in the case under IPC sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 153A (promoting enmity in grounds of religion). The case is at the stage of examination-in-chief of police witnesses.

The latest observation was made while the court was junking an application moved by Pracha, seeking to recall one of the witnesses — a forensic expert — for his further cross-examination, on grounds that in an earlier hearing last month, the witness could not be sufficiently cross-examined as the advocate had to rush to the Delhi high court for another matter. “Counsels are expected to manage among themselves when they accept a case while having other cases also pending for hearing,” the court said.

The application was opposed by the prosecution, stating that as per Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if an advocate is engaged in another court while a witness is being examined, the same shall not be a ground for seeking adjournment.

Special public prosecutor Madhukar Pandey further said that advocate Pracha has followed the same approach of seeking adjournments in the past too.

In an order passed on March 19, ASJ Pramachala noted that the said witness was initially examined in the case on January 16 and was not cross-examined since Pracha sought adjournment.

On January 22, the witness was called again for the examination by the advocate, however, an associate of the advocate sought to defer the cross-examination, which was declined by the court and the cross-examination of the witness was closed.

The court stated, “Counsels are expected to manage among themselves, when they accept a case, while having other cases also pending for hearing.