Back
High Court Of Delhi
STATE - Appellant
Versus
RAM SARUP SABHARWAL - Respondent
CRI.M.(M.) 1261 of 1989
Decided On : 09/07/1989
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - SUMMONING OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AS DEFENCE WITNESSES - RELEVANCY AND NECESSITY - INHERENT POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT TO INTERFERE WITH INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging two orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, summoning the former and present Commissioners of Police as defence witnesses in a trial under the Official Secrets Act. The accused-respondent was facing trial under Sections 3, 5, and 9 of the Official Secrets Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the summoning of the present Police Commissioner, Sh. Vijay Karan, was not necessary or relevant to the defense of the accused. The court also held that the summoning of the former Police Commissioner, Sh. Ved Marwaha, was necessary for the proper defense of the accused, but that the trial court should thoroughly satisfy itself whether the defense can be permitted to examine Sh. Ved Marwaha with reference to any of the files/documents sought to be summoned.
Issues: 1. Whether the summoning of the Police Commissioners as defence witnesses was necessary and relevant? 2. Whether the High Court had the inherent power to interfere with the interlocutory orders passed by the trial court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the summoning of the present Police Commissioner, Sh. Vijay Karan, was not necessary or relevant to the defense of the accused because he was not involved in the investigation of the case and his alleged press statement about the use of third-degree methods by the police was inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. The court held that the summoning of the former Police Commissioner, Sh. Ved Marwaha, was necessary for the proper defense of the accused, but that the trial court should thoroughly satisfy itself whether the defense can be permitted to examine Sh. Ved Marwaha with reference to any of the files/documents sought to be summoned. 3. The court held that it had the inherent power to interfere with the interlocutory orders passed by the trial court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though Section 397(2) of the Code barred the filing of a revision petition in relation to interlocutory orders, because the impugned order clearly brought about a situation which was an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court partly set aside and modified the order of the trial court to the extent that it would not summon Shri Vijay Karan, but would summon only Shri Ved Marwaha and that too with the documents etc. referred above and will also bear the observations of this Court in para 9 of this judgment while recording his evidence.
( 2 ) THE grievance is that the defence did not spell out the purpose for which these two senior police officers were to be summoned and examined as defence witnesses. Further that no reason has been given by the learned trial court as to how the evidence of these two witnesses was relevant or necessary because they had not taken any part in the investigation in this case against the respondent-accused.
( 3 ) THIS application has been strongly opposed on behalf of the respondent-accused and I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. G. Ramaswami, Addl. Solicitor General of India for the State and Sh. P. N. Lekhi for the respondent-accused.
( 4 ) SINCE the discussion in respect of the present police Commissioner Sh. Vijay Karan is short, I would first like to deal with the relevancy of his being examined as a witness in defence. My attention in this respect has been drawn by Sh. P. N. Lekhi to the fact that he had allegedly given a press interview published in the Hindustan Times dated March 16, 1989 in which he had stated that the ban on third degree methods used by the police was paying dividends. According to the learned counsel this amounted to an admission on the part of the present Police Commissioner that actually third degree methods were being used by police and that is why this practice was sought to be stopped. I have given my very careful consideration to come to a conclusion whether this circumstance in itself will be sufficient to hold that it was necessary for the defence to examine him as a witness. The first order by the learned trial court dated 18th July, 1989 also mentions only this fact of the alleged press interview/statement having been made by Sh. Vijay Karan, Commissioner of Police which necessitated his examination as a defence witness. So far as the use of third degree methods in extorting confessional statements from the accused persons is concerned, the same seems to have been prevalent not only in this country but also in other countries of the world since long. In England a confession made to a police officer is not inadmissible by reason of its having been made to a police officer although it has been held that if a confession is made by an accused in consequence of any continuous interrogation by the police, the same is inadmissible. However, in India under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no confession made to a police officer can be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Even if the case of the respondent accused before the learned trial court is that some confessional statement was extorted from him by any police officer, the same would be in-admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sh. P. N. Lekhi has not drawn my attention to any circumstance on account of which the examination of Sh. Vijay Karan, Commissioner of Police would be necessary and relevant in that context. He has also not drawn my attention to any other circumstance by which it would be visualized that at any
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
