1985 (12) TMI 58 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing an order passed by the Magistrate.
2. Interpretation of Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the summoning of witnesses by the defense.
3. Fair trial rights of the accused in presenting evidence for their defense.
4. Duty of the court to summon defense witnesses unless for specific reasons mentioned in the law.
5. Consideration of the purpose of examining witnesses and denial of fair trial.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a petition filed by two accused goldsmiths under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash an order passed by the Magistrate in a case filed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, under the Gold (Control) Act. The accused were found in possession of excess gold ornaments, leading to their prosecution.

2. The Magistrate had issued an order allowing the accused to examine only four witnesses out of the 28 listed in their defense schedule. The accused intended to prove their innocence by explaining how the excess gold came into their possession. The Magistrate's decision was based on the assumption that all witnesses were to prove the same point, which the accused contested.

3. The judgment emphasizes that fair trial rights are fundamental, and the accused have the right to present evidence in support of their defense. Denial of this right amounts to a denial of a fair trial, which is a violation of constitutional principles. The accused have the right to call any witness to support their defense, and the court must summon such witnesses unless specific grounds for refusal are present.

4. Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates the court to issue processes for compelling witness attendance unless the application is made for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. The court cannot refuse to summon witnesses without valid reasons, and the purpose of examining witnesses should not be dictated by the court.

5. The judgment highlights that the Magistrate's refusal to allow the examination of all witnesses was not justified. Each witness was crucial for proving different aspects of the defense, and denying this opportunity would amount to a denial of a fair trial. The court must ensure that justice is not denied based on the expenses involved in summoning witnesses, as fair trial rights are paramount.

6. The judgment allows the petition, setting aside the Magistrate's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration in line with the provisions of Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasizes the importance of upholding fair trial rights and ensuring that the accused have the opportunity to present their defense effectively.