9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of s. 342A of the Criminal Procedure Code - Applicability of amended Code to pending prosecutions - Construction of s. 116 of the Amending Act. Detailed Analysis: The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Nagpur, which upheld the Special Magistrate's refusal to allow the appellant to give evidence under s. 342A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant, accused under various sections, sought to appear as a witness on his own behalf, but his application was dismissed based on the interpretation that the proceedings were to follow the unamended Code. The High Court held that the amended provisions did not apply to pending cases, emphasizing the wording of the Amending Act's s. 116. However, the Court noted that no accused person had the right to appear as a witness under the unamended Code, and the introduction of s. 342A by the Amending Act allowed the accused to give evidence in defense, subject to certain conditions. The key issue revolved around the retrospective application of the amended Code to pending prosecutions. The Court cited legal principles stating that changes in procedural law operate retrospectively, and individuals have no vested right in a specific procedure. The interpretation of s. 116 of the Amending Act was crucial, particularly the language regarding pending trials. The Court analyzed the conflicting interpretations of clause (c) of s. 116, emphasizing that the provisions of the amended Code should apply to all proceedings, including those pending at the time of enactment, unless expressly excluded. The Court examined the specific provisions of the Amending Act, such as the substitution of s. 251 by s. 251A, which outlined procedures in warrant cases. It was highlighted that s. 342A, falling under Chapter 24, was not explicitly made inapplicable to pending criminal proceedings where evidence had begun to be recorded. The Court concluded that the plain construction of s. 116 allowed the appellant to avail of s. 342A as a competent witness for the defense. The High Court's misinterpretation of the clause "as if this Act had not been passed" led to the erroneous dismissal of the appellant's application. In the final judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that the appellant's application to appear as a witness under s. 342A was valid and should have been permitted. The ruling clarified the applicability of the amended Code to pending prosecutions, affirming the right of the accused to give evidence in disproof of the charges against them, as provided by the Amending Act.
|
