9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1287 - HC - Indian LawsCalling witness for the purpose of examination - jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was properly exercised or not - HELD THAT - The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C is that there may not be a failure of justice on account of the mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. A bare reading of Section 311 would show that this section vests in the courts the power to summon any person as a witness or to recall and reexamine any witness at any stage of the inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the code if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. It will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court under section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon a witness merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused - The function of the criminal court is to administer justice and not to evaluate the parties on the basis of their performance. In the present case, the allegations include that of the forgery of a letter of the then Minister and thus are quite serious in nature. It is correct that this witness had not appeared before the Court despite having opportunities been given. There may also be a possibility that there might be some lethargy on the part of the prosecution but it is the duty of the Court to ensure that justice should be done and a criminal trial should conclude with the desired objective of the quest for justice. Suppose this witness is not examined, the Court or this case shall always be deprived of some material facts which could have been produced. Taking into account the timeline, which shall expire in the middle of April, the CBI is directed to examine PW C. Edmonds Allen through video conferencing on the date set up by the learned Trial Court.CBI shall not be given more than two opportunities for examining this witness. If the witness fails to appear on these two dates or CBI fails to examine (except for some technical reason), the right to his examination shall automatically stand closed. The learned Trial Court shall also give an opportunity to the defence for the statement of the accused and the defence witnesses, if any, on a day-to-day basis. The Learned Trial Court may fix a schedule accordingly to ensure that the trial is completed within the time frame given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present petition along with the pending applications are allowed and disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the trial court's decision to dismiss the plea for examining a material witness. 2. Adequacy of opportunities given to the CBI to produce the witness. 3. The necessity of the witness's testimony for adjudication. 4. Procedural aspects related to the examination of the witness via video conferencing. 5. Compliance with the Supreme Court's directives on the trial timeline. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Trial Court's Decision to Dismiss the Plea for Examining a Material Witness: The petition challenges the order dated 23.10.2020, where the Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, dismissed the plea to call Mr. C. Edmonds Allen for examination. The trial court noted that the witness was intentionally evading the court and misusing the legal process. The CBI argued that Mr. Allen's testimony is crucial for adjudicating the case involving forgery and corruption, asserting that the trial court did not properly exercise its jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 2. Adequacy of Opportunities Given to the CBI to Produce the Witness: The trial court had previously noted that summons were duly executed and served upon Mr. Allen, who failed to appear. Despite sufficient time and opportunities given to the CBI, the witness did not present himself. The trial court had explicitly stated that no further opportunities would be granted to the CBI for summoning Mr. Allen, leading to the closure of Prosecution Evidence (PE) and subsequent recording of the accused's statements and defense evidence. 3. The Necessity of the Witness's Testimony for Adjudication: The CBI contended that Mr. Allen's testimony is essential to prove significant facts, including the use of specific email IDs by the accused for transmitting forged documents and details of financial dealings relevant to the case. The respondent argued that the witness's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was never recorded, and the CBI is attempting to fill lacunae in their evidence. The court emphasized that the best available evidence should be brought before the court to ensure justice, and a trial should not be adjudicated without examining a material witness. 4. Procedural Aspects Related to the Examination of the Witness via Video Conferencing: The court considered the advanced age and medical condition of Mr. Allen, which prevented him from traveling. The CBI's plea included the witness's request to testify via video conferencing due to his health issues. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, which approved recording evidence through video conferencing when the witness's presence could not be procured without unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience. 5. Compliance with the Supreme Court's Directives on the Trial Timeline: The Supreme Court had directed the trial to be completed within one year, later extending the timeline by six months. The respondent argued that reopening the prosecution evidence would lead to a de-novo trial, causing further delays. The court acknowledged the need to respect the Supreme Court's timeline while ensuring justice. It directed the CBI to examine Mr. Allen through video conferencing within the remaining time frame, granting no more than two opportunities for his examination. Conclusion: The court set aside the trial court's order, allowing the CBI to examine Mr. Allen via video conferencing. It emphasized the importance of his testimony for a just decision and directed the trial court to complete the process within the Supreme Court's stipulated timeline. The decision underscores the balance between procedural compliance and the quest for justice, ensuring that material evidence is not excluded due to technicalities.
|
