9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Misjoinder of charges and persons 2. Irregular procedure in investigation and committal stages 3. Introduction of irrelevant evidence 4. Abuse of powers under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) 5. Admissibility and reliability of the approver's evidence Detailed Analysis: 1. Misjoinder of Charges and Persons: The High Court concluded that there was a misjoinder of charges and persons, asserting that the provisions of Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. were not applicable cumulatively and that the trial involved more than three offences of the same kind, violating Section 234. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 239 allows for cumulative application of its clauses and is not subject to the limitations of Section 234. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 239 is to avoid multiplicity of trials and that the various clauses of Section 239 can be applied together. The Court held that the joint trial of the respondents was valid and that the charges were framed correctly under the provisions of Section 239. 2. Irregular Procedure in Investigation and Committal Stages: The respondents argued that the procedure adopted during the investigation and committal stages was irregular. The Supreme Court did not find any substantial merit in this argument, noting that the respondents had not raised these objections at the appropriate time during the trial. The Court emphasized that procedural irregularities must be shown to have caused a failure of justice to be considered significant. 3. Introduction of Irrelevant Evidence: The High Court had held that certain account books and other documents introduced by the prosecution were irrelevant and inadmissible. The Supreme Court clarified that entries in account books are relevant under Section 34 of the Evidence Act when they refer to a matter under inquiry. Additionally, the absence of entries in account books can be relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, as it can be inconsistent with the prosecution's case. The Court also addressed the admissibility of untranslated account books, stating that the High Court erred in applying Section 356 (2A) of the Cr. P.C. to documentary evidence. 4. Abuse of Powers Under Section 342 of the Cr. P.C.: The respondents contended that the examination under Section 342 was unfair, with long and involved questions and references to numerous documents not made available to them. The Supreme Court found that the questions, though lengthy, were understood and answered by the respondents, who also filed written statements addressing the points raised. The Court held that there was no abuse of power and that the respondents were not prejudiced in their defense. 5. Admissibility and Reliability of the Approver's Evidence: The High Court had deemed the approver's evidence inadmissible due to an allegedly illegal pardon. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the pardon, stating that Section 337 (1) of the Cr. P.C. applied to the offences in question. The Court also rejected the argument that the Additional District Magistrate was not empowered to grant the pardon, noting that the power to grant pardon had been conferred on executive magistrates, including the Additional District Magistrate (Independent). The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence of the approver should be considered in conjunction with corroborative evidence and that the High Court should re-evaluate the evidence on its merits. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of the respondents and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on the merits, considering the entire evidence and the specific charges. The Court instructed the High Court to focus on a few selected charges under each head, excluding conspiracy, to streamline the proceedings and ensure a thorough evaluation. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further consideration.
|
