A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 29-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
91
A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER
v.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2021)
OCTOBER 29,2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allegation of clandestine
export – Two separate trials – Acquittal by two separate judgments
– Appellate court considering evidence of only one case and
convicting the accused – Propriety of – Held: Evidence recorded in
a criminal trial against any accused is confined to the culpability
of that accused only and it does not have any bearing upon a co-
accused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a
separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence – In
the instant case, High Court committed an error of law in dealing
with the evidence of one trial for deciding both the appeals arising
out of two separate trials – Prosecution in both the trials produced
seven witnesses and filed 13 documents which were proved and
exhibited – The witnesses in the second case were not examined in
the same sequence as the first case and consequently, the 13
documents filed were also not given the same exhibit numbers in the
second case as in the first case – Merely because the seven witnesses
produced by the prosecution were the same in both the cases would
not mean that the evidence was identical and similar because in the
oral testimony, not only the examination-in-chief but also the cross-
examination is equally important and relevant, if not more – Even if
the examination-in-chief of all the seven witnesses in both the cases,
although examined in different sequence, was the same, there could
have been an element of some benefit accruing to the accused in
each case depending upon the cross-examination which could have
been conducted may be by the same counsel or a different counsel
– The role of each accused cannot be said to be the same – The
same witnesses could have deposed differently in different trials
against different accused differently depending upon the complicity
or/and culpability of such accused – All these aspects were to be
examined and scrutinised by the Appellate Court while dealing with
91
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 91
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
both the appeals separately and the evidence recorded in the
respective trials giving rise to the appeals – High Court ought to
have distinctly considered and dealt with the evidence of both the
trials and then decide the culpability of the accused persons – Matter
remitted to High Court for consideration afresh – Customs Act, 1962
– Administration of criminal justice – Fair trial.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.367, 391 – In a criminal
appeal against conviction, the appellate court examines the evidence
recorded by the trial court and takes a call upon the issue of guilt
and innocence of the accused – The scope of the appellate court’s
power does not go beyond the evidence available before it in the
form of a trial court record of a particular case, unless s.367 or
s.391 comes into play in a given case, which are meant for further
inquiry or additional evidence while dealing with any criminal
appeal.
 Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Fair trial is the foundation of the criminal justice
delivery system. The statutory arrangement of criminal justice
delivery system encompasses few provisions in that regard under
the Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act, 1872.Section 273 of Cr.P.C.
provides that except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence
taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken
in the presence of the accused, or, when his attendance is
dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader. The exception of
this provision finds place in section 205 of Cr.P.C. wherein
personal attendance of accused is dispensed with and he is
permitted to appear by his pleader and also in section 299 of
Cr.P.C., which provides for recording of evidence in the absence
of the accused under certain eventualities like absconding of
accused or commission of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life by some person or persons unknown.
However, this exception has few conditions to be strictly followed
by the trial court and prosecution. Besides such an exception,
the basic principle of recording evidence in presence of the
accused is imperative. [Paras 19, 20, 21][100-A-C, E-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
93
1.2 In the Evidence Act

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.