9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Non-compliance of provisions of subsection (4) of Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the determination of the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code in a criminal revision case. The prosecution's case involved a raid conducted by a police head constable and a raiding party resulting in the recovery of illicit liquor. The prosecution's evidence highlighted the involvement of witnesses who were not categorized as independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality as required by the law. Despite the prosecution establishing guilt, the failure to associate two more independent and respectable witnesses raised doubts benefiting the accused. The judgment delves into the interpretation of sub-sections (4), (5), and (8) of Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing the requirement for the presence of independent and respectable witnesses during a search. The court noted the stringent nature of these provisions and the consequences of non-compliance, making it an offense under the Indian Penal Code. The judgment highlighted the duty imposed on the conducting officer to ensure the presence of such witnesses during a search. Furthermore, the judgment discussed the possibility of non-compliance not always being fatal to the prosecution, as certain circumstances might make it impracticable to procure such witnesses. Citing a Supreme Court case, the judgment emphasized the prosecution's onus to prove the impossibility of meeting the requirements of Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code. In the case at hand, the prosecution failed to demonstrate the unavailability of independent witnesses, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case and ultimately benefiting the accused. Ultimately, the judgment concluded that the flagrant violation of the law by not complying with the requirement of independent and respectable witnesses rendered the prosecution case doubtful and unreliable. The failure to call upon such witnesses despite their availability in the locality raised suspicions, leading to the setting aside of the order of conviction against the accused and the discharge of their bail bonds. The judgment underscored the importance of strict adherence to legal provisions to maintain the integrity of criminal proceedings.
|
