LexBHASKAR @ PRABASKAR AND ORS. versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B BHASKAR @ PRABASKAR AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 [K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S.326 (as amended by Act 45 of 1978)-Trial of offences by Designated TADA Court-Abolition of Designated C Court on expiry of TADA Act-Transfer of part-heard cases to regular Courts-Power of succeeding Judge to act on the evidence already recorded-Demand for de nova trial-Rejecte~Validity of-Held, Trial Court can act upon the evidence recorded by TADA Court-Accused not entitle to de nova trial of the case-Te"orist and Disruptive Activities (Preven- D tion) Act, 1987-Ss.3 & 5--Penal Code, 1860-S.302 read with S.120-B- Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992-S.4. E Te"orist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-S.18-Ap- plicability of Words and Phrases : "Succeeded by another Judge" meaning and scope of in the context of S.326 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. ' F Appellant was prosecuted by a Designated Court constituted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 for offences under S.302 read with S.120-B of IPC and S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 besides under Ss. 3 and 5 of TADA Act. During the progress of trial, TADA Act expired and G TADA Courts were abolished. Consequently, part-heard cases were trans- ferred to regular Court for trial of remaining offences. In the instant case, Sessions Court decided to proceed with the trial from the stage at which the Designated Court left the trial by acting upon the evidence already recorded in the case. Appellant's demand for de nova trial was rejected. On appeal, High Court held that the Trial Court was not obliged to hold H de nova trial in view of S.326 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence the 114 f - BHASKAR v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 115 present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. Appellant-accused is not entitled to de nova trial of case and Trial Court can act upon the evidence already recorded by the Designated Court. [118-B] 1.2. S.326 of the Code empowers the succeeding Judge or Magistrate A B to act on the evidence already recorded in the case by his predecessors. For application of S.326 of the Code three postulate must be concatenated together. First is, a Judge should have recorded the evidence in the case C either in part or in whole. Next is, the said Judge should have ceased to exercise jurisdiction in that case, and the third is, another Judge should have succeeded him and such successor Judge must have jurisdiction to try the offences concerned. In the Instant case, the Judge of Designated Court, a Sessions Judge who partly recorded the evidence in the case, ceased to have jurisdiction on account of abolition of that Court. The Sessions Judge D to whom the case is transferred for trial of the offences charged must be regarded as a successor Judge who can act on the evidence! already recorded and proceed with the matter. [120-G; H; 121-A; 122-G] 2. No prejudice would be caused to the accused ifthe evidence already E on record is treated as evidence in the case as he can invoke the powers envisaged in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 326 of the Code. If the successor Judge is of the opinion that further examination of any witness, whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, the Judge would re-summon such witness either for further ex- amination or further cross-examination and re-examination. A contrary F interpretation would lead to unwholesome repetition of the entire exercise involving considerable cost to the exchequer, financial strain to the accused and waste of time of the courts. Greater than all those, it would inflict untold inconveniences to the witnesses who are the innocent parties in the case, Witnesses who were once summoned before the Court and have un- dergone the agony should be spared from resummoning unless it is ab- G solutely necessary to meet the ends of justice. [123-E; 123-D] 3. The legislative intention is clear from a reading of Section 326 of the Code that the words "succeeded by another Judge" must get a wide amplitude,. It is for the said purpose that sub-section (2) is incorporated H 116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A bringing even cases transferred
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.