Forgot password
2000 (1) TMI 1016 - SC - Indian Laws
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 202 of the CrPC.
2. Delay in Criminal Proceedings.
3. Validity of Committal Order due to Non-Examination of Witnesses.
4. Application of Section 465 of the CrPC.
5. Procedural Requirements for Magistrate in Committal to Sessions Court.
Summary:
1. Interpretation of Section 202 of the CrPC:
Justice K.T. Thomas emphasized the importance of interpreting the proviso to Section 202(2) of the CrPC. He stated that the magistrate must conduct an inquiry and examine all witnesses when the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. He explained that this requirement is not merely discretionary but a compelling duty to ensure justice.
2. Delay in Criminal Proceedings:
The case highlighted significant delays in criminal proceedings, with almost eleven years passing since the alleged offence. The delay was attributed to procedural lapses and court orders, underscoring the need for timely objections to avoid protracted trials.
3. Validity of Committal Order due to Non-Examination of Witnesses:
The High Court quashed the committal order due to the magistrate's failure to examine witnesses before committing the case to the Sessions Court. Justice Thomas noted that the accused did not raise this objection at earlier stages, which could have prevented the delay. He concluded that the omission did not occasion a failure of justice as the accused had opportunities to cross-examine witnesses during the trial.
4. Application of Section 465 of the CrPC:
Section 465 of the CrPC was discussed to determine whether the omission to examine witnesses vitiated the committal order. Justice Thomas and Justice Shah agreed that such procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate proceedings unless they result in a failure of justice. They emphasized that objections should be raised at the earliest stage to avoid delays.
5. Procedural Requirements for Magistrate in Committal to Sessions Court:
Justice Shah elaborated that under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the CrPC, the magistrate has the discretion to decide whether to hold an inquiry before issuing process. The proviso to Section 202(2) mandates that in cases triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the magistrate must examine all witnesses on oath if he decides to hold an inquiry. However, failure to do so does not necessarily vitiate the proceedings, especially if no prejudice is caused to the accused.
Conclusion:
Both Justices agreed that the High Court's order to hold a fresh inquiry was unnecessary. They directed the Sessions Court to complete the hearing of arguments and dispose of the case on merits in accordance with the law. The judgment underscores the importance of timely objections and the discretionary yet obligatory nature of the magistrate's duties under Section 202 of the CrPC.