S 243 CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Compel Attendance Of Witness Who Was Already Been Cross Examined Unless Satisfied That It Is Necessary For Ends Of Justice: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition challenging the order of a Judicial Magistrate who had declined an accused's request for permission under Section 243 Cr.P.C. to summon defence witnesses.
A Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed “It can fairly be inferred that the defence has not been able to demonstrate that how and why examination of these witnesses is important for his defence and that why and how their evidence may prove helpful to disprove the prosecution case or to prove his innocence or even to create cracks or doubts in the prosecution story.”
Advocate Utkarsh Birla represented the petitioner, while AGA Ram Kumar Verma appeared for the respondent.
A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on the accusation that he had hatched a conspiracy showing a fake incident of loot and that he had prepared false papers to show a false incident as a genuine one. During the trial, the petitioner had filed an application to summon retired officers as defence witnesses.
The trial court had held that the petitioner had summoned the retired officers as witnesses for the purpose of vexation or delay and to defeat the ends of justice.
The petitioner argued that he had given detailed reasons for the purpose of summoning the witnesses as adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right and denial of the same is equivalent to denial of fair trial.
The High Court considered whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner on the above grounds.
The Court perused to Section 243 of the Cr.P.C. and discussed that the Section maintains a clear distinction between those who are produced by the defence for the first time and those who have already testified as witnesses. For witnesses undergoing fresh examination, the magistrate may issue process unless the application is refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delaying ends of justice; second, for witnesses already cross-examined by the defence, where their attendance will not be compelled unless the magistrate deems it necessary for the ends of justice.
The Court noted, “It can fairly be inferred that the defence has not been able to demonstrate that how and why examination of these witnesses is important for his defence and that why and how their evidence may prove helpful to disprove the prosecution case or to prove his innocence or even to create cracks or doubts in the prosecution story.”
The Court did not interfere with the impugned order and concluded that “the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is definitely supervisory in nature, but it should be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases, only to prevent miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law.”
The High Court subsequently dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Diwakar Singh v. State of U.P. (2024:AHC:4001)