2000 (3) TMI 1119 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right of the accused to examine a large number of witnesses.
2. Power of the court to limit the number of witnesses.
3. Interpretation of Section 243 of the CrPC in conjunction with Section 22 of the P.C. Act.
4. Legislative intent behind Section 22 of the P.C. Act.
5. Judicial discretion in allowing additional witnesses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of the accused to examine a large number of witnesses:
The appellant submitted a list of 267 witnesses for the defense. The trial court directed the appellant to limit the number of witnesses to the minimum necessary, which led to the appellant seeking relief from the High Court and subsequently filing a Special Leave Petition.

2. Power of the court to limit the number of witnesses:
The trial court categorized the witness list into four divisions and allowed only a limited number of witnesses from each division to be examined. This decision was based on the grounds of avoiding unnecessary delay and ensuring a speedy trial. The High Court marginally increased the number of permitted witnesses but still imposed limitations.

3. Interpretation of Section 243 of the CrPC in conjunction with Section 22 of the P.C. Act:
The court examined Section 243 of the CrPC, which allows the court to refuse to summon any witness if the application is made for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. Section 22 of the P.C. Act modifies Section 243(1) of the CrPC specifically for trials under the P.C. Act, requiring the accused to provide a list of witnesses and documents before being called to enter on his defense.

4. Legislative intent behind Section 22 of the P.C. Act:
The legislative intent behind Section 22 of the P.C. Act is to ensure a speedy trial, especially in cases of corruption, by preventing unnecessary delays caused by the examination of an excessive number of witnesses. This intent is rooted in the historical context of the Prevention of Corruption Act and its amendments aimed at combating corruption more effectively.

5. Judicial discretion in allowing additional witnesses:
The court concluded that the trial court and the High Court acted within their powers by limiting the number of witnesses to prevent delay and ensure a speedy trial. However, the court also provided that after the appellant completes the examination of the permitted witnesses, he can request the trial court to allow additional witnesses if it is essential for a just decision. The trial court can then decide based on the necessity and relevance of the additional witnesses.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with the observation that the appellant could request the examination of additional witnesses if deemed necessary after completing the examination of the currently permitted witnesses. The trial court has the discretion to allow such requests in the interest of justice.