State of Maharashtra V/s Dr. Praful B Desai

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2013-04-01
Case No: 476 of 2003
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: S.N. Variava & B.N. Agrawal
Subject: Criminal Law -Extradition
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: Indir Jaisingh, V.B. Joshi, S.S. Shinde and V.N. Raghupathy, Advs. and Party in perso (P) & Ashok H. Desai, Shridhar Y. Chitale, Rashmi D. Chandrachud, Meenakshi Nag, Abhijat P. Medh (R)
State of Appellant(s): Maharashtra
History of Case No: Judgment and Order dated 23/24.4.2001 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. A. No. 3193 of 1999
Equal Citation Details :

2003(2)ALT(Cri)118, 2003(5)ALT14(SC), 2003(2)CGLJ86, 2003CriLJ2033, 2003(2)CTC787, 2003GLH(23)447, JT2003(3)SC382, 2003(2)MhLj868, 2003(2)MhLJ868(SC), 2003MPLJ434(SC), 2003(3)PLJR114, 2003 95 RD158, RLW2003(2)SC268, 2003(3)SCALE554, (2003)4SCC601, [2003]3SCR244, 2003(2)UC1011, 2004(2)U.D.60, 2003(2)UJ769, 2003(2)ACR1269(SC), AIR2003SC2053, 2003(1)ALD(Cri)848, 2003 (51) ALR 436

Case Note / Description :

It must be remembered that the first duty of the Court is to do justice. Courts must endeavour to find the truth and that there would be failure of justice not only by an unjust conviction but also by acquittal of the guilty for unjustified failure to produce available evidence. Of course the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and safeguarded, but they should not be over emphasized to the extent of forgetting that the victims also have rights. [255-A, B] Sri Krishna Gobe v. Stale of Maharashtra, [1973] 4 SCC 23, relied on. 1.4. It must also be remembered that the Criminal Procedure Code is an ongoing statute. The principles of interpreting an ongoing statute have been very succinctly set out by the jurists and referred by Courts in number of cases. The apex Court has approved the principle of updating construction as enunciated by Francis Bennion, in a number of decisions. However, it is well settled law that the doctrine "Contemporanea exposition est optima et fortissimm" has no application when interpreting a provision of an ongoing statute. [255-C; 256-E; 257-D] National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan, [1983] 1 SCC 228; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. M/s. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd., [1997] 5 SCC 482; State v. S.J. Chowdhury, [1996] 2 SCC 428; SIL Import USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, [1999] 4 SCC 567 and Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka, [2000] 8 SCC 740, relied on. Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion 2nd Edition, Page 617 -referred to. 1.5. Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel, hear or imagine what does not really exist. Video conferencing has nothing to do with virtual reality. Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see. hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is personally present. In fact he/ she is present on a screen. Except for touching one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. Thus, so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the "presence" of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of Section 273 Cr.P.C. Recording of such evidence would be as per "procedure established by law". [257-E; 258-A, B, C] 1.6. Recording of evidence by video conferencing also satisfies the object of providing, in Section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the Accused. The Accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. In fact the accused may be able to see the witness better than he may have been able to if he was sitting in the dock in a crowded Court room. They can observe his or her demeanour. In fact the facility to play back would enable better observation of demeanour. They can hear and rehear the deposition of the witness. The accused would be able to instruct his pleader immediately and thus cross-examination of the witness is as effective, if not better. The facility of play back would give an added advantage whilst cross-examining the witness. The witness can be confronted with documents or other material or statement in the same manner as if he/she was in Court. All these objects would be fully met when evidence is recorded by video conferencing. Thus no predspace, of whatsoever nature, is caused to the accused. It is also possible to set up video conferencing equipment in the Court itself. In that case evidence would be recorded by the Magistrate or under his dictation in open Court. [258-D, E, F; 259-A] 1.7. To this method there may arise some difficulties if the witness commits Contempt of Court or perjures himself and it is immediately noticed that he has perjured himself. Therefore, as a matter of prudence evidence by video-conferencing in open Court should be only if the witness is in a country which has an extradition treaty with India and under whose laws Contempt of Court and perjury are also punishable. [259-B] 2.1. In cases where the witness is necessary for the ends of justice and the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case would be unreasonable, the Court may dispense with such attendance and issue a commission for examination of the witness. In the instant case, the concerned doctor had refused to come to India to give evidence. His evidence appears to be necessary for the ends of Justice. Courts in India cannot procure his attendance. In such case commission could be issued for recording evidence. Normally a commission would involve recording evidence at the place where the witness is. However, advancement in science and technology has now made it possible to record evidence of witness by way of video conferencing in the town/city where the Court is. Thus in such matters, the Court could consider issuing a commission to record the evidence by way of video-conferencing. However, commission cannot be issued if there is no arrangement between the Government of India and the country where the commission is proposed to be issued because the services of an official of the country (mostly a Judicial Officer) would be required to record such evidence and to ensure attendance. When a witness is willing to give evidence an official of the Court can be deputed to record evidence on commission by way of video-conferencing. The evidence will be recorded in the studio/hall where the video-conferencing takes place. It must be clarified that adopting such a procedure may not be possible if the witness is out of India and not willing to give evidence. [260-D-F; 262-B, C] Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, [1972] 3 SCC 793, followed. 2.2. Time for recording evidence on commission is always fixed by the officer who has been deputed to so record evidence. The officer would have the discretion to fix up the time in consultation with VSNL, who are experts in the field. Respondent and his counsel will have to make it convenient to attend at the time fixed by the concerned officer. If they do not remain present the Magistrate will take action, as provided in law, to compel attendance. However, the officer deputed would be one who has authority to administer oaths and he will administer the oath. Undoubtedly an officer would have to be deputed, either from India or from the Consulate/Embassy in the country where the evidence is being recorded who would remain present when the evidence is being recorded and who will ensure that there is no other person in the room where the witness is sitting whilst the evidence is being recorded. That officer will ensure that the witness is not coached/tutored/prompted. It would be advisable, though not necessary, that the witness be asked to give evidence in a room in the Consulate/Embassy. As the evidence is being recorded on commission that evidence will subsequently be read into Court. Thus no question arises of the witness insulting the Court. If on reading the evidence the Court finds that the witness has perjured himself, just like in any other evidence on commission, the Court will ignore or disbelieve such evidence. [263-F, G; 264-A-C] 2.3. In the instant case, the concerned officer will ensure that once video conferencing commences, as far as possible, it is proceeded with, without any adjournments. Further it if is found that the doctor in USA is not attending at the time/s fixed, without any sufficient cause, then it would be open for the Magistrate to disallow recording of evidence by video conferencing.

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)