Revival - A possible Thing?

Revival – A possible Thing?

      It was old Madras, Pre Independence Era. Barristers and greatest Lawyers had their reign over Madras High Court at that time. Judges like Muthuswami Iyer adorned the adjudicating Position. It was probably the Glorious era of Indian Judiciary.

     A suit for damages filed by one Chettiyar ( I have forgotten his name) against Madras Tramways Company. Probably the quantum of compensation was very high and hence the suit was filed under the original civil jurisdiction of letters Patent of Madras High court. The case of the plaintiff was that the were some cracks occurred in his house due to the jolting caused by Tramways which was owned by the defendant company namely Madras Tramway Company Ltd.,

     The defendant company has engaged Barrister Nugent Grant, a great cross Examiner, for defending the suit. The case was posted before the Master and Chief Examination of PW1 was recorded. At that time Chief Examination in civil cases could not be recorded by way of filing affidavits, The procedure of filing affidavits was introduced through the amendment of 2002 in civil procedure code.

     No doubt, the plaintiff in that case has deposed very well without any lapses and the same reiterated the strength of the plaintiff’s case. The defendant side shall have to cross examine PW1.

     Barrister Nugent Grant stood and corrected his silk gown and stared at PW1, the plaintiff for few seconds and got ready to cross examine him. Sworn was taken by the bench assistant.

Grant asked a single question to the plaintiff :

“ How many cracks in your House……. except you?”!!!!!

That plaintiff started shouting at the court hall like,

“Are you saying me as a crack?

You are that Crack.

Do you think, i m longing in for this money?

I don’t need this money and i m withdrawing this suit”.

Alas!! He disowned his claim by way of losing his temper. Ultimately he lost his case to a tricky cross examiner. It is noteworthy here that Nugent grant has not even entered into the merits of the case but by his wisdom of cross examination and his sharp skill to adjudge the psychology of the persons ultimately won his case.

      The art of cross examination is the powerful weapon to elucidate the truth from witnesses. Right to cross examination is an important facet of Principles of Natural justice. (AIR 2013 SC 58) A cross examiner shall have a panoramic view of the entire facts of the case and then only it is possible to effectively cross examine the witnesses. Mohd. Ali Jinnah was known for his high class cross examination in Pune Hindu – Muslim Riot case where he appeared for Bal Gangadar Tilak.

      Luminaries like Ram Jeth Malani, Nani Palkiwala were adored for their excellent skill of cross examination. In Sampath Iyyengar Copy Right Violation suit, Nani Palkiwala has proven his skill of Cross examination at Madras High court. A historic case which was not reported in any journals contrarily. Likewise V.L.Ethiraj, N.T.Vanamamalai, Sri Vriddhachalam Reddiyar of Trichy were some of the greatest cross examiners. Sir Eardley Norton’s cross examination in Sullivan Vs Norton was a master piece. K.M.Munshi’s cross examination in the infamous M.K.Thyagaraja Bagavathar Case was one of the finest one in which he appeared for Accused No.3, Sri Ramulu Naidu, a famous producer cum director and the owner of Pakshiraja Films. Another example for famous cross examination was by Late Sri N.T.Vanamamalai in M.R.Radha Case (Actor MGR shooting case).

     Retired Hon’ble justice Mr. T.Suthanthiram, as well as a very great cross examiner, used to render some words in the court hall while disposing off cases which were like that of precious pearls for junior advocates. In a case related to a bail in a Protection of Civil rights Act complaint, Justice Sudanthiram called for the case diary and gone through the statements recorded from witnesses. The investigating officer in these cases will be in the cadre of Deputy superintendent of police.

     Hon’ble Justice has called the investigating officer and pointed out the absurdity of investigation. He asked questions to the investigating officer in the style of cross examining the investigating officer like that of a blitzkreig…. An amazing experience for all the advocates who were present in the court hall No.8 of Madurai bench of Madras High court. At the end he pointed junior Advocates and said

” If you cross examine Like this, no investigating officer would have the guts to conduct such an absurd investigation in future“.

     Ultimately the FIR was quashed in that case by way of invoking section 482 Cr.P.C suo moto where actually the case was merely for a bail.

      Truly his words shall be written in gold. The guts, an advocate shall possess, could be acquired through the knowledge and wisdom and through the skill to cross examine. There after certain rules for the process of Cross examination.

12 Golden rules of cross examination:

1) Simple, clear and precise.

2) constructive cross examination before any destructive cross examination.

3) Don’t attack if you don’t need to attack.

4) If in doubt, leave it out.

5) Keep control so as to avoid interruption in the flow of concession.

6) Close down ambiguousrespose.

7) Don’t answer questions.

8) Keep best points first.

9) The quicker interned, the more permanent to burial.

10) Be seen to be fair, But firm.

11) Dissect the evasive answers.

12) Logic must be lucid.

     A cross examiner shall be confident with the factual aspect of the case and he shall not give room for any surprises for himself. There is no straight jacket formula for the questions in cross examination and at the same time the cross examiner shall be aware of what shall not be asked. A cross examiner shall ask only questions for which he knows the answer.

     Nowadays the art of cross examination is in a deteriorating stage rather we can say that the art of Cross examination is dead.

     Many students from renowned law schools are starting practise straightly in the apex without even having the little exposure to trial. It is also true only handful of graduates are coming for the practise itself. I had a chance to interact with final year students of a very renowned law school recently and I had a previlege to ask about their interest over trial advocacy. Unfortunately none of the students have the passion for trial advocacy. This kind of attitude is the sole reason for deterioration of the art of cross examination.

     We have seen a golden era of trial advocacy in our legal history and we are also witnessing the present scenario which need not explained. It is only we are responsible for decline of trial advocacy from Super Standard position to Sub Standard position but a Revival is not imposdible.

With an expectation for ray of hope

-BSM