Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1971 (2) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in disallowing the expenses and air fare for the Appellant's lawyer to be taken to Germany. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Commission on an interlocutory application in a revision application against the discharge of an accused person. 3. Whether the High Court could grant an application for Commission when a similar application was rejected by another Bench of the same High Court on the merits and substantially on the same facts. 4. Applicability of Section 503 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the issue of a Commission. 5. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to enlarge the scope of Section 503 on the ground of a lacuna in the provision. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification for Disallowing Expenses and Air Fare for Appellant's Lawyer: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's refusal to allow any expenses for the Appellant's lawyer to be taken to Germany was justified. The High Court had denied these expenses based on a concluded finding of fact that the Appellant had intimidated and tampered with the German witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized that in every criminal trial, the accused is entitled to have witnesses examined in his presence. If witnesses cannot be brought to India and must be examined on commission abroad, it is incumbent upon the prosecution and the Court to ensure a fair trial by affording the accused the same facilities as other accused, including the payment of the lawyer's air fare and daily expenses. The Court found little merit in singling out the Appellant and concluded that the interest of justice required treating him the same as the other accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the prosecution was directed to pay the Appellant's lawyer's air fare and daily expenses. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Issue a Commission: The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court had the power to issue a Commission on an interlocutory application in a revision application against the discharge of an accused person. The Court noted that the High Court has ample power and jurisdiction to direct additional evidence in the interest of justice and fair play, even before setting aside an order of discharge. The decision in Rajeswar Prasad Mishra v. State of West Bengal was cited to support this contention, emphasizing that the High Court can direct further evidence if necessary for justice. 3. Granting an Application for Commission After Rejection by Another Bench: The issue of whether the High Court could grant an application for Commission when a similar application was previously rejected by another Bench of the same High Court was raised. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue in the judgment, focusing instead on the specific question of expenses for the Appellant's lawyer. However, it implied that the High Court's actions were within its jurisdiction and powers. 4. Applicability of Section 503 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The question of whether the case fell within the provision of Section 503 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the issue of a Commission was raised. The Supreme Court did not explicitly address this issue in detail but implied that the High Court's decision to issue a Commission was within its legal powers and jurisdiction. 5. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court: The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of Section 503 on the ground of a lacuna in the provision. The judgment suggested that the High Court has the inherent power to ensure justice and fair play, including directing additional evidence or issuing a Commission if necessary. Separate Judgment for Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 890 of 1970: The Supreme Court also addressed a similar petition by another accused (A1), which raised grounds similar to those of the Appellant. The Court reiterated that the High Court has the jurisdiction to direct further evidence even before setting aside an order of discharge. The petition was rejected, affirming the High Court's power to issue the Commission and the decision not to grant leave for additional questions raised. In summary, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal regarding the expenses for the Appellant's lawyer, ensuring he received the same facilities as other accused. The Court affirmed the High Court's jurisdiction to issue a Commission and direct additional evidence in the interest of justice, rejecting the petition that challenged these powers.
|