LexNATASHA SINGH versus CBI (STATE)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 539 NATASHA SINGH v. CBI (STATE) (Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2013) MAY 8, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.311 - Proceedings initiated under the /PC and Prevention of C Corruption Act - Three accused including appellant - Appellant, in her defence examined one witness, DW-2 and after proving certain documents closed her defence - Trial Court fixed date for hearing final arguments - Prior to date of final hearing, application filed by appellant u/s.311 CrPC for D permission to examine three witnesses - Application dismissed by trial court on ground that examination of the witnesses sought to be examined by the appellant was unnecessary - High Court affirmed the order of trial court - Propriety - Held: Not proper - Application filed uls. 311 E Cr.P. C. must be allowed if fresh evidence is being produced to facilitate a just decision -The trial court prejudged the evidence of the witnesses sought to be examined by the appellant, and thereby caused grave and material prejudice to the appellant as regards her defence, which tantamounts F to a flagrant violation of the principles of law governing the production of such evidence in keeping with the provisions of s. 311 Cr. P. C - Trial Court reached the conclusion that production of such evidence by the defence was not essential to facilitate a just decision of the case - Such an assumption G was wholly misconceived, and not tenable in law as appellant has every right to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution - Furthermore, instant case not one where if application filed by the appellant had 539 H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A been allowed, the process would have taken much time - In fact, disallowing the said application, has caused delay - No prejudice would have been caused to the prosecution, if the defence had been permitted to examine said three witnesses - Application u/s.311 Cr.P. C. filed by appellant accordingly B allowed - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 13(2) rlw s.13(1)(d) - /PC - s.1208 rlw ss.420, 467, 468, 471. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.311 - Powers under- Scope and object-Held: Poweruls.311 Cr.P.C. must be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of C justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection - Determinative factor should be, whether summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case - Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a D valuable right - Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial - Under no circumstances can a person's right to fair trial be jeopardized - Criminal trial - Fair trial. In a case pertaining to allegations of inflated E insurance claim involving a company and a public servant, FIR was registered under Section 1208 read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) . read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant-Director of the company, F another Director and the public servant concerned. Charges were framed by the Trial Court agaim~t all the three accused. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 52 witnesses .subsequent whereto, the statement of the appellant-accused was recorded. The G appellant, in her defence examined only one witness, namely, DW-2 and after proving certain documents closed her defence. Subsequently, one other accused, A- 3 concluded his defence after examining two defence witnesses. The Trial Court thereafter, fixed the date for hearing final arguments as 5.3.2013. The appellant H NATASHA SINGH v. CBI (STATE) 541 preferred application under Section 311 Cr.P .C. on A 5.3.2013 for permission to examine three witnesses. The appellant wished to examine one of the panchnama witnesses, whom the prosecution had neither listed nor examined in court. The second person was Company Secretary of the company, of which the appellant was the B Director. The third witness was a hand-writing expert. The Trial court dismissed the application, observing that examination of the witnesses sought to be examined by the appellant-accused was in fact unnecessary, and would in no way assist in the process of arriving at a just c decision with respect to the case. The High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.