Shamoon Ahmed Sayed S/O Syed Abdul Ala vs Intelligence Officer on 14 August, 2008

[Cites 9, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Shamoon Ahmed Sayed S/O Syed Abdul Ala vs Intelligence Officer on 14 August, 2008

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA AT 8AN@8LC3f§E* %

DATED THIS THE 14*" my or-* AU6U5T§:20(3;3:    

BEFORE-J  

me HON'8LE MR..IU5T.{CE MOHAN sH).NTAs4Aeou::An 

CRIMINAL PETITiG£;i."NQ.305§!2fGO8 

BETWEEN:

1.

Shamoon ahmed Sa3reti'»-11"' S] o.Sye<i A::.m;1;A1a Aged 30 3rfs'=%%!I"s " ~ R/at.4'h;'A ~ Bangalercj A '1;

. sygaA;-M S/o.Sy;d'Abdu_1 C Aged 25 ycazfs _ R[9.t4*-'G Amrosa V' Layccﬁagm, Sn ééasha, Ad»-.,) _ _ H ".jI1tc:lligcm't:£: Oﬁice:-,1' " " g _Pv'arcx_>tic Control Bureau . . PETITI CNERS the applfﬁéﬁbﬁ ﬁled by the petitioners under ' to as "Cr.P.C"). By ﬁling the said " i,»:at;c;j;)1i§:a.tiaii, {I1e.*3 petitioners had prayed for deferring the '~VvV'crc5s;V'sV4exé;minaﬁon of PW.1, until the examination-in-- ¢1ﬁer:3r CWs.2 to 5, is recorded. South Zonal Unit .' V' g Chttnnai .. raaspomnxfm'. ._ V. J__ % {By Sri Urval N.Ramanam:i, CGSC) This: Cr1.P. is filed u;nderVS€:ctiot1_482 of Cr;.P.C.,"the~ ' advocate for the pctitioner praying that this i-Ionfblc. Courl: v ' may be pleased to set aside the'0;iit=:r dateﬁ. 3:? passed in Sp1.Case No. 152/ 2004 on the iii}-$3 of X}{Xli!.Add1.S§es5ions Judge and SpLJudgc for l\3'[3PS:,* City and consquently aﬂow the ap}_5Ecat--ion§--,ﬁJed_'11ﬁdAer Secﬁon 231(2) of Cr.P.(3. and direct for' é1¢fcx*r.i1é;g,'of c-1:339-sxamiuation of PW. 1 until the exam.inatjOaeir1:cﬁ3ie;f"vVofr If3..Ws.2 to 5 is This Cr}. mg" and gstservcd for orders, this day the _»deliver§é(£fi:.he'fcniloﬁyiiig:«- V'U QE§ER By_.1;he the Court below has sf Criminal Procedure (for short \»/V .5- cxaminaﬁon--in-chief of CW2-S. vfzry much necessary prior to the 4_ as CW2 is the Superinten§i£m.._ pf ' 3 Bureau and Head of the Search Search and seizure of ﬂ1eV1};3§it:ptic

3. It is arguéigiby Pa'-As2V1a, iearned counsel appeaﬁng L ~ 'jgmtitioners that CWS2 speak to the contents of {lie prunes' dings relating to the evidance to be deposed by CWs.2 "t9V_'5 woum kbek similar to the evidence of V-§ I§ier:ﬁ'01*eA.' every likelihood of them:

oﬁ'icia'I___ inkling of the cross- of. witness to another and thereby " tl1eir"d«;:;fen{:e to a great extent. éi1 bmissions made on behalf of the petitioners age by Sri Urval Nﬁamanand, learned counsel V'

-3.

the seizure mahazar. In ease if CWs.2 to_ ..$ about the facts, which are not found ill open for the defence to cross-V¢2;ami:1r:"thce: '_pt*€15€{cui5§)£i» _ "

witnesses on such points.

knowing the case of the':p:;rg}secutio1:. ai'..Vttés?;"'vi;r;¢;'é:ptio11 ' inasmuch as the police aﬁ§:;?':inve$ﬁga.ﬁ6n._ha1}e laid the charge sheet. The have to depose based on the this Court is of the consigizsifgd ..§3;b$OIftV11;'t3_1f.«"""VIV1{) prejudice will be causegifgf' 1 is czmss-examined prierito '--£j){é§.IIliI1atit3I1*iI1-Cl'1iCf of CWs.2 to 5. \V?'iew taken by High Ccmrt of in of Matllal chakravarty as. The in 1950 Criminal Law Journal 115 ' Vftf;¢ of Lulu Alum as. State of West LA 3e}:ga1,«_rg&oned in 2003(1) Crimes 525. W

5. At this stage, it is relevant to note the provisions of Sections 137 and 133 0f the Indian Evidenoe_4A{§t..§:t1d Sections 231 and 242(3) of Cr.P.C., which 4,31. &mminntion--?1h"¥c'hiaf:"s_ .; é ' "

examination of a witntzss A' " Z calls him shall be canea-ms gross-ex*nmiin"af:iioné.e. "£.'i1eu of a witness by thy: ..:§,c£Versé_ 1_s'ha1i be called 11153. 2 ..

éxammaﬁon 01" a wi£ne:fss,V - to the cross-

party who called him, V, . be re--cxan1iI1ation.

_ " 9; of §g§na.tions:~-- Witnesses ex3mined---in--s::hief then (if the "<adt%_ersF:"" party so desires) cross-examined, t1ic:1jE'(if the party calling him an desires) re- 3 " _ V "e:xam1'ned.

W *;g* The examinatiorx and cross-axaminatiori must relate ta relevant facts but the ;;§'t5s=.§+ 'V:- i.- A4 examination need not be ccsI1fme c1 % V' facts to which the witness cxamiI:1ation-in-chief.

Direction of xe--e1u%L2$§i--a;ati§>ﬁ:.gV_ S examiriation sljaail A' 'to-.. £319 explanation Gf cross»-

examinatiofi; is, by permissiverg the in re-

may further cross-exgéiﬁixga mdtter. " " "Cr.P.C.:«~Evidance for _,¢3_r¢seé"1ﬁ::ian$"- the date so ﬁxed, the 1}c;ig*3_ Shaﬂ pi'f}{Z'{'":6d to take ali such evidence __a$_ produced in smpport of the .. The Judge may, in his discretion, ' * s péfmit the (3ross-examination of any witness " w 3:0 be deferred until any other witness or W' .}1.

Wi'{.I1€$$€3S have been examined or recall any Witness far further cross-examination."

"Section 24 3 of Cr.P.C.:On the tiate.-.___ so ﬁxeci, the Magisrate snail pressed to all such evidermc as may be produczgél' support of the prosecution." L. Combined reading of &pm:signs Qwisuid make it amply clear that as a I11i«.¢,-»_ .th;<~:

shall be ﬁrs: ti1€~;n _ uVa;d"§erse V party so des.ii*é'é)" (if the party ca1i111' g 113331' sozdtzlsirés) Exceptien is fcmnd under sub-As¢=;ctioLﬁ" {2} Vet' 231 and proviso to Seéﬁﬁn 24%:éLi3;,ur P. give the discretion to the . Vir1f§;:s$-exasniriation of any witness to ,1:§e"deferr6€l__V other Wit11€3SS or witnesses have ' __e;a.am»' x T ﬁned.' 1' W' .15.

be emss« each and every wimese. Q reference to earlier statements made by such---t$iitﬁe.:§$ well as by other witnesses the? K "

Thereby the defence weuld 'to.' discrepancies among the evidenee of the " ' so as given in the Court and ale{j~dieerepaei1e§ee}:.5etween the evidence of a witinéss his earlier statement made _ A3:n__ the A ' V " 'bael-; gcmnd, the previsiqn of éection 231 and Section P. viewed.

8. ;§sV'hae by'? this Court in the case of 'Iayakar-_ " rwarted in LLB eee k%199e :x.s.% ~12 .{2«_783,é.v%f'lie com; may, While exereisiﬂg it under sub--section (2) of Section 231A'e__f want such postponement 01' cress----

" " 3 A"--e§:ami13atiei1 on exeeptienal grounds, as, for instance, A ?s§?i1e1*e.f11e counsel is unprepared or where the accused ':'_4'e'-as; undefended the first day and put only few W' . 1? .

p1'oc+:-"xiure may help the speedy disposal of M will save the precious time of Court. * V. matter for avssaexaminaﬁon of the next day, the court shoujd an v such process will not delay or zoéatter.

9. Sections 231 1=>.<;: as found in Code of 19?sa:¢sns1ogeus to sub--

section (7)    Code of Criminal
Procedure,    inserted in the
Code of   of '.26 of 1955. For

the p11rpo-soof suﬁsocﬁon ('7) of Section 251A a:s"it..ﬂ1ei':1\éxé:sted is rc¥1evsr1t:-

'é'.fi;s1'oate so ﬁxed, the Magistrate to take all such evidonce as x may" produced in support of the V' * V prosecution:

Provided ﬁhat the Magsﬁate may pert tho orossexamination of any witness to be M .13.

deferred until any other witness V. witnesses have been examined, any witI1e$s for further c:i*a{$Vs~'" - ' " examination."

The objects for Procedure, 1898, by Act of 1955 :';_i:I'e:v':a$1':;111c1er :- 'The Code 'drf- was eI1act<f;d in_ Iéf§§VV'8V':'a_1:i1ti.: f1£ii:11gi1 time to havig made in it, it has Viuialteiwed ciuring aim of a seund _i'Ls.twc}-fold: (a) to provide aﬂegmaté' ' to every accused person. " for ciief3;§di11gV'}1i111seIf in a proper manner, V ..(b) same time, to ensure speedy H «.:,-.1" an criminal judicial business, so a persons should not suffer from p s and the: real " 'v(}iTcnders should be punished as early as possible after proper trial. Exmrieni 110w shown t__._hat t__t_g: Dresent Crimina; iv"

.49.

Procedure Code does not encourage SI}€3ﬁd_V § and that it leaves many guilty pl3I'S()l"lS to ggstwne the 6V1.°3.-E' day" _ much as mssible. This is a very 3 » state of aﬁairs and there' 'is"s.«gr§3wing :'j§-1_1blié«' demand for simpﬁﬁcaﬁfgz " so i' that the Iaroceediﬁgs-.. ti;

sxﬁdy end. The _ i:.»*- _Vdssign:sd tsgmeet that d«emand..§.;.._,_....._.;§; "-I';

 .......      feel that

the  are  that they
shsuzss s  jfully with the

adixxii;.istr§ﬁ1tio;i'«»z§f justice. Sessions Judges iiowf'bci13.gT'sA---agzttxoxised, Whtmever thsy Exiziedienn to hold trials at any sAp1aceV"aa%'it}1in their jurisdiction. The intention 'that if be managed, 3 Sessions trial T. be held as near the place of as possible, theregy caus__11_:3g' the miﬁimum inconvexﬁence to the witnesses. z '=--The same ruie Wcmld apply to magisterial trials. To step the prevailing evil of pexjury and to make the witnesses realise that it is a V .29..

very .=:«mti-s<:>ciai act on the part of anyone_ V misléad a cnurt; of justice by delibeifaiély. A4 ﬂving false: evidence, the courts V' 'i authorised to try a wit:{1ess*' {cf A the offence of perjury and ig:ali~u;_';)()ri..i1ii:Ii ti) ShOW cause why he sheuiti I4}'O1}:'i'iC helgi Gf this serious offence. "

The procediiifé: is simpliﬁed so thaid 'witness should no_t'ni:1rmaily' more than urban a secanii V. 'strata thinks tliat i$T:.ifea2i'3_fgeCcSsitv fer h1_'_§ further cr"Gs$-exa1x1:iri=ii;i6n.:&:'AiiiourI_1ments are not to be Ve2::cé,*.3i:'i':$j:' an unavoidable cause, " so fair agggossibie. no adiourmnent is to without 1:}; examinatien of the V , 'V present in court. One cf the .3 inuses of repeated adjounlments is ""'thé.i1d1i~ati:enda11ce of witnesses. There is a A. , geﬁeral impression that non-compliance with summons of the court is not a serious matter, and un1eSs a warrant is issued for M .23.

eﬁicial witnesses only, whe may have to the S-imi.iar facts. Thus, the defence may application invoking Section 231(2) er ' 243(3) of Cr.P.C. on the gomigi of be caused in every mattei'-...__ I':3u2t-._the 'e.a1;;riot allowed by the Ceurt. As defence of accused will _ at all as the examinatien-51.1.-ehie§A . generally will proceed recorded under Sectio:_1__V1é6*é.. mahazars, etc. More over, may defeat the object of legeiaten-gv, carmot be defeated by Inieixi{erpIeﬁ'1i'g" Saw. _!.f the cmss-exaxninatien of a witness till the examination-iI1-chief of all the tjerer, the same will not only delay the ofﬁthe matter, but also cause inconvenience to M K V' V ti1e--.3=ritfiesms to a geat extent. The witnesses will have

-- called several times or at least for second time V' . 25 .

Having regard to the Scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act mom particularly for enacting Section 231(2) and proviso CI'.P.C. (Which replaced old Section 251A..of the procedure normally foﬂowéqd counﬂy, this Ceurt is 0f=i1_1_e cdi1$iiie1'ed"" c.x_pijf;;fioI§_j'; " L. sub~sect.ion (2) of Section 231 .ko1' Q: r=;c,kkfam vvproviso to Section 242(3) of viﬁvqked only with a View to have thfi Afﬁﬁiérwise. _{}'o§. reasons, this Court does not f111d"*aI*1f; interfere with thif': conclusion Vby below. Petition is accordingly VA Sdl-':__ Iudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court