Adverse remarks against public prosecutors expunged where trial court erred on confronting defence witness with video, lacked jurisdiction to debar, and violated natural justice by not hearing them before alleging neglect.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed against the order dated January 30, 2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur (learned Trial Court) in the case titled State versus Maya Devi and others, for expunging the observations made against the petitioners.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a case No. 13 of 2023 titled State versus Maya Devi and others is pending before the learned Trial Court. Matter was listed on 29.11.2024 for recording the statement of Hari Krishan (DW3). Petitioner No.2, Rahul Chopra, was cross- examining the witness. He produced one pen drive and requested the Court to confront the witness with its contents. Learned Trial Court held that the evidence of the prosecution had already been closed, no pen drive was produced by the prosecution or the complainant, the pen drive was not supported by a certificate, no prior notice was given to the defence and the statement of the witness under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was available on record to confront him; therefore, the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor could not be allowed. A request to defer the cross- examination of the witness was also rejected.

3. The victim filed an application under Section 15A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC & ST Act) for placing on record the pen drive and DVD along with the relevant certificate. It was asserted that one video of the incident became viral after the completion of the prosecution’s evidence. This video was sent to the victim by a villager on her WhatsApp. The contents of the video were transferred to DVD. A pen drive, a DVD and a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act were to be placed on record.

4. The application was opposed by the accused by filing a reply. The State did not file any reply.

5. The matter came up before the learned Trial Court on 30.01.2025, and the learned Trial Court held that the earlier learned Public Prosecutor had requested to put the recording on the pen drive to the witness, which request was turned down. The pen drive and video were made available to the learned Public Prosecutor on 29.11.2024. The victim had to engage a private counsel and file an application to bring the pen drive on record. The victim was not supposed to know the technicalities of the law. However, the Public Prosecutor was supposed to be aware of the provisions of law and the method of bringing the document on record. The learned Public Prosecutor had not taken any steps to bring the pen drive on record, and the victim had to engage a private counsel. The Public Prosecutor and Special Public Prosecutor neglected their duties; therefore, a show cause notice was issued to them as to why the administrative inquiry under Section 4 of the SC & ST Act should not be recommended against them because they failed to perform their duties, and they were debarred from appearing in the case in future.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the observation made against them. It was asserted that the learned Trial Court wrongly concluded that the victim was forced to engage a private counsel due to the neglect of the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 had told the victim that she had a right to engage a private counsel, and the State would also file a supplementary charge-sheet. The victim has an absolute right to engage counsel under Section 15A (12) of the SC & ST Act. The pen drive was supplied to the petitioner No. 2 on 29.11.2024, which fact was recorded in the statement. Petitioner No.2 had brought the pen drive to the notice of the Court, but the learned Trial Court refused to accept it. The petitioners are discharging their duties honestly and faithfully. Section 4 of the SC & ST Act is not att