Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1624
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. DEVADASS, J.
Ilangovan – Petitioner
Vs.
State through, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption – Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 8985 of 2016 and Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos. 4429, 4430 of 2016
Decided On : 15-06-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Subash Babu.
For the Respondent:Mr. P. Kandasamy Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
The right to cross-examination is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial in criminal proceedings, and it must be balanced with the interests of the prosecution to ensure a just outcome.
Headnote:
Recall of Witnesses - Criminal Procedure Code - Prevention of Corruption Act - 311 Cr.P.C. - 303 Cr.P.C. - Article 21, Constitution of India - Right to Cross-Examination - Fair Trial
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to recall witnesses for cross-examination in a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court had dismissed the recall petition citing delay and time constraints.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized the importance of the accused's right to effective defense, including the right to cross-examine witnesses. It highlighted the need for a fair trial and balanced the interests of the accused and the prosecution.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the accused's right to recall witnesses for cross-examination, the impact of time constraints on the trial process, and the balance between the accused's rights and the prosecution's interests.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial and cannot be unduly curtailed. It emphasized the need to balance the interests of the accused and the prosecution in criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the trial court's order was set aside. The trial court was directed to fix dates for the recalling of witnesses for cross-examination, taking into account the convenience of both the prosecution and the defense.
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Cr.M.P.No.137 of 2016 filed under 311 Cr.P.C. on the file of learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Sivagangai, A2 has directed this revision.
2. A1 to A3 are being prosecuted in the said calender case for certain I.P.C. offences and also for certain white colour offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial of the case is going on and number of witnesses were examined. Now, the I.O. is slated to enter the witness box.
3. At this juncture the said recall petition has been filed. It has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge on the ground that there is delay in recalling the P.Ws. and it is an attempt to derail the trial and it is also a time limit case.
4. The petitioner intends to cross-examine P.Ws.5, 7, 13, 43 and 57. Major portion of the impugned order is from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment. Following of the decision of a superior Court is laudable. But misapplication of it is not laudable. Application of a case-law depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
5. Fixing time limit for the disposal of a case has got its own advantage and disadvantage. Merit is the trial process will be quickened. By fixing time limit, the hands of the trial Court is tied. It will not be allowed to breath, it will suffocate, because the time limit sword is hanging on its head, the trial Judge tend to turn down even genuine request of adjournment. It is basic that hurried justice will also result in burial of justice. Fixing time for the disposal of a case does not mean ignore principles of law, natural justice, deny reasonable opportunity to the needy. When this Court fixes time limit for the disposal of a case there will be pressure on the trial Court to finish the case. But while doing so, justice and principles of law cannot be finished. While fixing time limit no Court could/should say for the sake of quick disposal do not follow law and finish the case at any cost. Law cannot be sent to quicksand. It is good to remember that sometimes hurried justice promote burial of justice.
6. Trial Courts are expected not to defer the cross of witnesses mechanically as it leads to miscarriage of Justice also. It is being used to gain over the witnesses and the trial Court Judge will be on trial on his remembering capacity. The advice of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the Trial Court is to discourage deferring of cross-examination of witnesses.
7. But what about past cases where cross examination has been already deferred. The Hon'ble Apex Court does not say in such cases do not recall the witnesses. In such cases if recall petition is not entertained how the accused will establish his defence. Accused has a constitutional right to defend himself. (See Article 22(1), 21 Constitution of India and Section 303 Cr.P.C.) Defence must be 'effective' and 'not cosmetic'. Effective defence includes right to cross-examine the witness who gave incriminating evidence. It is also part of principles of natural justice and fundamental judicial procedure. In fact, it is a facet of human right and also become a component of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
8. Now, in this case, there are three accused, namely, A1 to A3. A1 had cross-examined P.Ws.5, 7, 13, 43 and 57. As on today, the revision petitioner/A2 has not cross-examined these witnesses. Merely on account of delay can he be denied his right of defence. Can he be deprived of his right to cross examine those witnesses.
9. In this respect, the approach of a Criminal Court should differ from a Civil Court. In Civil Court, rights and liabilities of the parties are decided. But in Criminal Court, right to liberty of a person is involved. A slight slip will land him jail. It will affect his family, reputation, his future, life and career. A whole family will be ruined by a wrong judgment.
10. Although as per Article 21, Constitution of India liberty of a person can be taken away, but it should be only in a manner
