LexWAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRA versus UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. [2022] 2 S.C.R. 102 102 WAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRA v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR (Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2022) FEBRUARY 25, 2022 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.173(6), 207 and 161 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.44 – Whether in the case of certain witnesses being declared as protected witnesses in the exercise of powers u/s.173(6) CrPC, read with s.44 of UAPA by the trial court, can the defence seek recourse to the remedy u/ s.207 and s.161 CrPC for obtaining copies of redacted statements of these protected witnesses – Trial Court noted that the prosecution was duty bound to provide the copies of the statements of protected witnesses to the accused in order to provide a fair trial – In appeal, the High Court held that having allowed the plea of protected witnesses and directing their testimonies to be kept in a sealed cover, permitting copies of redacted statements would amount to revisiting and reviewing its own orders, which was not permissible – Held: The provisions of s.173(6) CrPC read with s.44 of UAPA and s.17 of the NIA Act stand on a different plane with different legal implications as compared to s.207 CrPC – Consequently, the trial court order allowing the redacted statements u/s.207 CrPC is not an exercise of power of review – The trial court order is both fair and reasonable for the prosecution and defence while protecting the witnesses and not depriving the defence of a fair trial with the disclosure of the redacted portion of the testimony u/s.207 CrPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The provisions of Section 173(6) of the CrPC read with Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of the National Investigation Agency Act stand on a different plane with different legal implications as compared to Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The first order was passed at the threshold. There was no notice to the accused. The objective of Section 44, UAPA, Section 17, NIA Act, and Section A B C D E F G H 103 173(6) is to safeguard witnesses. They are in the nature of a statutory witness protection. On the court being satisfied that the disclosure of the address and name of the witness could endanger the family and the witness, such an order can be passed. They are also in the context of special provisions made for offences under special statutes. [Para 24][112-D-E] 2. The occasion for the appellant/accused to come in and seek redacted statements under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. arose when the trial was to commence and the appellant was of the view that in order to plead an appropriate defence there should be full disclosure minus the redacted portion so that the testimonies of those witnesses could be utilised without disclosing their identities or their place of residence. This is not an exercise of the power of review but the exercise of powers at two different stages of proceedings under two different provisions. [Para 25][112-F-H] 3. The order passed by the trial court has been cautiously worded. The order has not only permitted redaction of the address and particulars of the witnesses which could disclose their identities but has further observed that even other relevant paras in the statement which would disclose their occupation and identity could be redacted. Thus, a wide discretion has been given and that too for the Special Public Prosecutor to take a call. There could thus have hardly been a grievance raised by the prosecution in this regard. The order of the trial court is both fair and reasonable for the prosecution and defence while protecting the witnesses and not depriving the defence of a fair trial with the disclosure of the redacted portion of the testimony under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. [Para 27][113-C-F] Mohd. Hussain v. State (GNCTD) (2012) 2 SCC 584 : [2012] 1 SCR 64; Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 : [2010] 4 SCR 103; Jahid Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 762 : [2011] 10 SCR 1; D. Subair T.P. & Ors. v. Union of India (2021) 1 KLT (SN 17) and Atul Shukla v. State of M.P. & Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 299 – referred to. WAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRA v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR A B C D E F G H 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2012] 1 SCR 64 referred to Para 18 [2010] 4 SCR 103 referred to Para 18 [2011] 10 SCR 1 referred to Para 18 (2019) 17 SCC 299 referr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.