Very important point
Accused under P.C. Act need be called upon to enter on his defence only after the trial Judge has occasion to peruse the names of the witnesses as well as the purpose of examination of each one of them, and also the nature of the documents which he proposed to adduce as his evidence. If the court feels that the list is intended only to delay the proceedings, the court is well within its powers to disallow even the whole of it.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 22 r/w Section 243(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1973—Defence of accused—Number of witnesses—Courts power/discretion to prune down list of witnesses submitted by accused—Accused need to be called upon to enter his defence only after trial Judge has occasion to pursue names of witnesses as well as purpose of examination—If Court feels that list is intended only to delay proceedings, Court is well within its power to disallow even whole of it—Accused cannot claim to examine all defence witnesses.
       A Court has the power to refuse to summon any person as a witness on any of the three different grounds : (1) If any witness is cited for the purpose of vexation; (2) If any witness is cited for causing delay; (3) If any witness is cited for defeating the ends of justice. In fact Section 243(2) of the Code incorporates such powers of the Court. (Para 9)
       The position of an accused who is involved in a trial under the P.C. Act is more cumbered than an accused in other cases due to legislative curbs. One of them is envisaged in Section 22 of the P.C. Act. The court is not obliged to direct an accused involved under the P.C. Act to enter upon his defence until the Special Court has the occasion to see the list of his witnesses and also the list of his documents to be adduced in evidence on the defence side. An accused in other cases has to be called upon to enter on his defence irrespective of whether he would propose to adduce defence evidence because it is a choice to be exercised by him only after he is called upon to enter on his defence. But the accused under P.C. Act need be called upon to enter on his defence only after the trial Judge has occasion to peruse the names of the witnesses as well as the purpose of examination of each one of them, and also the nature of the documents which he proposed to adduce as his evidence. (Para 13)
       When we read Section 22 of the P.C. Act which requires a particular procedure to be followed relating to the filing of list of witnesses and documents for the defence, it must be borne in mind that the legislative intent for the aforesaid change in the procedure is mainly for achieving expeditiousness of the trial. It is thus that the concept of speedy trial must apply to all trials, but in the trials for offences relating to corruption the pace must be accelerated with greater momentum due to a variety of reasons. Parliament expressed grave concern over the rampant ever-growing corruption among public servants which has been a major cause for the demoralisation of the society. When corrupt public servants are booked they try to take advantage of the delay proned procedural trammels of our legal system by keeping the penal consequences at bay for a considerable time. It was this reality which impelled the Parliament to chalk out measures to curb procrastinating procedural clues. Section 22 of the P.C. Act is one of the measures evolved to curtail the delay in corruption cases. So the construction of Section 243(1) of the Code as telescoped by Section 22 of the P.C. Act must be consistent with the aforesaid legislative intent. (Para 16)
       The purpose of furnishing a list of witnesses and documents to the Court before the accused is called upon to enter on his defence is to afford an occasion to the court to peruse the list. On such perusal, if the court feels that examination of at least some of the persons mentioned in the list is quite unnecessary to prove the defence plea and the time which would be needed for completing the examination of such witnesses would only result in procrastination, it is the duty of the court to short list such witnesses. If the court feels that the list is intended only to delay the proceedings, the court is well within its powers to disallow even the whole of it (Para 17)
       Where the accused submitted a list of 267 witnesses for the defence and the trial Judge pruned down the list to the minimum necessary witnesses and the High Court allowed few more witnesses but the accused appealed against the order, the Supreme Court held that it was unnecessary to interfere with the impugned orders as the pruning exercise undertaken by the trial Court and the High Court was within the limits permitted by law. After the appellant completes his evidence in accordance with the permission now granted as per the impugned orders, it is open to the appellant to convince the trial Court that some more persons need be examined in the interest of justice, if the appellant then thinks that such a course is necessary. The trial Court will then decide whether it is essential for a just decision of the case to examine more witnesses on the defence side. If the Court is so satisfied, the Special Judge can permit the appellant to examine such additional witnesses the examination of who he considers for a just decision of the case or he can exercise the powers envisaged in Section 311 of the Code in respect of such witnesses. (Paras 19 and 20)
       (ii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 243(1)—Defence witness—Number of witnesses—Courts power to limit number—Accused cannot claim to examine any number of witnesses in defence—Court has power to disallow defence witness if it feels list submitted by accused is intended only to delay proceedings. (Paras 9 and 17)
       Result : Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Judgment

Thomas, J.—Leave granted.

2. Has the accused a right to examine a myriad of witnesses and has the court any power to prune down the list of such witnesses? Such a question arose when the appellant submitted a list of 267 witnesses for the defence when the trial reached that stage. The trial Court was not disposed to allow him to examine all the persons mentioned in the list and directed him to limit the number to the minimum necessary. As the appellant was not willing to reduce the number of witnesses he approached the High Court to help him. But the advantage he got from the High Court was only marginal and it did not satisfy him. Hence, he filed the Special Leave Petition. After hearing Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant we felt that the appeal can be disposed of without the aid of arguments of the respondents and so we did not issue notice to them.

3. The factual background in which the situation reached the above stage is the following : Appellant and three persons are now being arraigned before the Special Court at Chennai for facing a charge for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses by summoning 41 persons. When the case reached the stage envisaged in Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ‘Code’) he submitted a list of defence witnesses. As we mentioned earlier the number of witnesses shown in the list so much that even a marathon legal proceeding would not be sufficient to exhaust the entire list.

4. The Special Judge made a scrutiny of the list and dissected the names into four divisions. The first division consisted of names shown as No. 1 to 8. The second division consisted of names shown as No. 9 to 117 in the list. The third division consisted of name figuring in the list as No. 118 to 177. The fourth division consisted of names of 178 to 267 witnesses.

5. The Special Judge permitted persons shown as Nos. 4 and 8 in the first division to be examined as he found them alone in the said division as necessary witnesses and the others were found unnecessary for the purpose of defence plea. Regarding the second division the Special Judge stated thus:

“Witness Nos. 9 to 117 have been cited as witnesses to speak about the masonry works, wood works, painting works etc. Instead of examining the huge number of witnesses, examination of one or two engineers will be sufficient and it would save the time also.”

6. About the third division learned Special Judge observed that since all of them were cited only to speak about the “agriculture and business income” of the accused the appellant can advisedly confine to ten witnesses in that division. Regarding the last division in the list learned Special Judge observed thus :

“List of witness Nos. 178 to 267 have been cited as witnesses to speak about the loans, gifts, etc. Such a huge list may not be necessary in view of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the accused could examine any 10 witnesses from them.”

7. Learned single Judge of the High Court felt that from the first division mentioned above the appellant can examine witnesses shown as Nos. 6 and 7 also and from the remaining divisions the appellant can choose ten more persons. The petitioner filed in the High Court was disposed of in the following terms :

“The Special Court is directed to permit the petitioner to examine witnesses 1, 4 to 7 and also 10 more witnesses in the list of witnesses 118 to 267, in addition to the witnesses already permitted to be examined. The order of the Special Court is modified as stated above. The criminal revision case is disposed of accordingly.”

8. Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel contended that once the trial Court has proceeded from the stage envisaged in sub-section (1) of Section 243 and passed over to the next stage contemplated in sub-section (2) he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (1)