Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2001 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (2) TMI 590 - SC - Indian LawsUnder-trial prisoner has been facing a record time for reaching culmination of the trial proceedings. Held that - The practice which can be a better substitute is this Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) We, therefore, make the above as a procedure to be followed by the trial courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in trial proceedings despite directions for speedy trials. 2. Application for modification of the order dated 31-3-2000 by extending the period for closing the trial. 3. Admissibility of documents and objections raised during trial proceedings. 4. Lack of sensitivity by the trial judge in accelerating the trial process. 5. Proposal for a new procedure to handle objections regarding the admissibility of evidence during trial. Issue 1: Delay in trial proceedings despite directions for speedy trials The judgment highlights the concern of the Supreme Court regarding the delay in trial proceedings despite repeated directions for expeditious trials in criminal courts. The case involved an under-trial prisoner facing a prolonged trial period due to various reasons, including the trial court's inability to proceed swiftly. The Supreme Court expressed disappointment over the lack of sensitivity displayed by some trial courts in ensuring timely trials, especially when accused individuals are held in custody for extended periods awaiting trial completion. Issue 2: Application for modification of the order dated 31-3-2000 The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed an application seeking a modification of the order dated 31-3-2000, which initially permitted the petitioner to move for bail again if the trial was not closed within six months. The trial, however, did not conclude within the specified timeframe, leading to the application for an extension of the trial period. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of completing the trial expeditiously and noted the positive response observed when efforts were made to accelerate the trial proceedings. Issue 3: Admissibility of documents and objections raised during trial During the trial, various objections were raised regarding the admissibility of documents and evidence. The trial judge faced challenges in maintaining a consistent pace due to objections raised by the defense counsel. The judgment criticized the trial judge for adopting a procedure that led to unnecessary delays in the trial process, such as stopping the trial for extended periods to address objections and waiting for parties to challenge interlocutory orders in higher courts. Issue 4: Lack of sensitivity by the trial judge in accelerating the trial process The Supreme Court highlighted the trial judge's lack of sensitivity in expediting the trial process, especially considering the prolonged period an accused individual had spent in jail as an under-trial. The judgment emphasized the importance of trial judges taking proactive measures to ensure the timely completion of trials, as delays can significantly impact the accused individuals awaiting trial. Issue 5: Proposal for a new procedure to handle objections regarding evidence admissibility The judgment proposed a new procedure for trial courts to handle objections regarding the admissibility of evidence during trial proceedings. The suggested procedure aimed to prevent unnecessary delays by allowing the court to mark objected documents tentatively as exhibits, subject to final determination at the end of the trial. This approach was presented as a more efficient method to streamline trial proceedings and avoid prolonged delays caused by objections raised during the evidence collection stage. In conclusion, the judgment addressed concerns related to trial delays, highlighted the need for sensitivity and efficiency in trial proceedings, and proposed a new procedure to handle objections regarding evidence admissibility to expedite trials in criminal courts.
|