G.P. Mittal, J.

1. The Petitioners invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(“Code”) for setting aside of the order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(“ASJ”) whereby the Petitioners’ prayer for confronting PW1(the complainant) with his previous statement, that is, interview telecast on Zee News on 04.01.2013 was rejected by the learned ASJ on the grounds, first that the interview being in violation of Section 327(3) of the Code was illegal, thus it could not be used as any evidence or previous statement to confront PW1 with the same and, second on the ground that the Press interview given to any news channel cannot be attached to any weight or credibility and thus, the Courts should not take the same into consideration for any purpose whatsoever.

2. Relying on Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2001) 3 SCC 1, the sole ground urged by Mr. V.K. Anand, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the time of hearing the Petition, is that if there was any objection as to the admissibility of the video CD containing the interview, the same ought to have been recorded by the learned ASJ and subject to the objection, the Petitioners ought to have been permitted to confront PW1 with his previous statement in the form of video CD if there was any material variation in the same. The learned counsel for the Petitioners also presses in service a judgment of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande & Ors.,2008 Cri.L.J.953 where in similar circumstances the interview contained in the video CD recorded by a TV channel was permitted to be confronted to the victim who was allegedly kidnapped by the persons facing trial for offence under Section 364-A/506(2) read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code(“IPC”).

3. Per contra, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor (Special PP) and Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) for the State(NCT of Delhi) supports the impugned order on the ground that sub-Section (2) of Section 327 of the Code mandates that the inquiry into and trial of an offence of rape or offence under Section 376 of the Code where any proceedings are held in camera and as per sub-Section (3) of Section 327 where any proceedings are held in camera, it is not lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceedings except with the previous permission of the Court. Elaborating his argument, the learned Special PP submits that the charge sheet in the instant case was filed on 03.01.2013 and the inquiry started on the very same day. Thus, the interview given by PW1 to Zee News on 04.01.2013 was illegal. Referring to a report of the Supreme Court in Ranu Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2011) 4 SCC 798, the learned Special PP argues that permitting an evidence illegally taken would perpetuate and encourage an illegality which is not permissible.

4. Referring to State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State(NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, Mushtaq Moosa Tarani v. Government of India, Writ Petition (L) 269/2005 decided on 31.03.2005, the learned Special PP argues that in the above said cases, the Supreme Court not only declined to look into the TV interview but also observed that the trial by media hampers fair investigation in trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reminded the Press that media should perform the acts of journalism and should not act in a manner prejudicial to fair trial or interference with the administration of criminal justice.

5. First of all, I shall deal with the contention raised by the learned Special PP.

6. In order to appreciate the bar to print or publish any matter in relation to any proceedings in respect of an offence of rape etc., it would be apposite to extract Section 327 of the Code hereunder:

“S.327. Court to be open- [(1) The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inqu