Trial court docket cannot feign ‘helplessness’ if official witnesses fail to look: HC

Trial court docket cannot feign ‘helplessness’ if official witnesses fail to look: HC



Tribune Information Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, September 15

The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has made it clear {that a} trial court docket can’t feign “helplessness” in issues the place the official witnesses aren’t showing regardless of the issuance of summons. Justice Pankaj Jain of the Excessive Court docket additionally made it clear that the court docket orders, requiring the presence of the witnesses, had been required to resonate with the authority of legislation.

Summon them via different mode

The justice supply course of can’t be left to the mercy of official witnesses, who’re evading the method. In case the witnesses fail to return, they must be summoned via an alternate mode as prescribed beneath the legislation. Justice Pankaj Jain

“The justice supply course of can’t be left on the mercy of official witnesses, who’re evading course of”, Justice Jain asserted, including that an alternate mode prescribed beneath the legislation was required to be enforced to make sure their presence.

The assertion got here throughout the listening to of a case searching for the setting apart of an order dated October 12, 2018, handed by the Jalandhar Judicial Justice of the Peace First Class, whereby the prosecution proof was ordered to be closed. The petitioner had additionally challenged one other order dated November 17, 2018, whereby Jalandhar Periods Choose dismissed the revision petition in opposition to the trial court docket order.

Justice Jain’s Bench was advised that the petitioner was a sufferer, on whose grievance an FIR alleging dishonest, felony breach of belief and different offences was registered beneath the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act on the Bhogpur police station in Jalandhar district.

The prosecution proof was closed after the cited witnesses failed to look earlier than the court docket throughout the course of the trial. Showing earlier than the Bench, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the witnesses to be examined had been official, together with the investigating officer. Their non-examination was sure to significantly dent the prosecution case.

After listening to the counsel for the events and “rigorously going via the case document”, Justice Jain asserted that the investigating officer had surprisingly been avoiding the method of legislation. A complete chapter within the Code of Felony Process was dedicated to summoning, aside from Part 350 which might all the time be invoked by the court docket, the place individuals failed to look regardless of being summoned.

“The witnesses to be examined are official and embody the investigating officer. The revisional court docket erred in holding that no illegality may be discovered with the order. Trite it’s that wherever the investigating officer fails to look at it may show to be deadly for the prosecution. Non-examination of the witnesses shouldn’t be within the curiosity of both of the events,” Justice Jain asserted.

Earlier than parting with the case, Justice Jain asserted the orders handed by the courts beneath consequently had been discovered to be misguided. As such, the identical had been being put aside. The trial court docket would, beneath the circumstances, present efficient alternatives to the prosecution to guide proof.

“In case the official witnesses failed to return current, they be summoned via alternate mode as prescribed beneath the legislation,” Justice Jain concluded.





Supply hyperlink

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.

%d bloggers like this: