Charge against the appellants are under sections 419, 420 of IPC and sections 66 read with 43 (j) and 66D of IT Act
2. The appellants are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66, read with Sections 43(J) and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The charge sheet has been filed, and the trial has proceeded. By the impugned order, the High Court rejected the appellants’ application for regular bail.
Trial judge recorded 12 Prosecution witnesses Chief-examination without recording their cross-examination
3. During the hearing on an earlier date, we were informed that the Trial Court recorded the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) one after the other on different dates without recording their cross-examination. Therefore, considering this peculiar procedure followed by the learned trial Judge, we requested the learned trial Judge to submit a report.
Trial proceeded as per the direction of the Hon’ble Madras High court but appellants did not engage any advocate
4. We have perused the report dated 11th March 2024 of the Trial Court, which records that by an order dated 27th June 2023, a direction was issued by the High Court to complete the trial preferably within a period of four months. Therefore, the charge was framed on 30th May 2023 and from 25th July 2023 to 7th February 2024, evidence of 12 prosecution witnesses was recorded. The report records that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded in the presence of the appellants, but their Advocate was not present as they had not engaged any Advocate.
Trial court ought to have provided legal aid advocate also the appellants did not declined to accept the service of legal aid lawyer
5. In our view, the Trial Court ought not to have recorded the evidence in this fashion. Before recording the examination-in-chief of the first prosecution witness, after finding that the appellants-accused had not engaged any Advocate, the Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate to the appellants/accused so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been recorded in the presence of the Advocate representing the appellants-accused. The order sheet enclosed with the report does not record that the appellants declined to accept the services of a legal aid lawyer.
Presence of accused’s advocate is required when chief-examination of a material Prosecution witness is being recorded to object to a leading or irrelevant question being asked to the witness
6. When the examination-in-chief of a material prosecution witness is being recorded, the presence of the Advocate for the accused is required. He has a right to object to a leading or irrelevant question being asked to the witness. If the trial is conducted in such a manner, an argument of prejudice will be available to the accused. This is a warrant case. In a warrant case, in view of the proviso to the sub-section (3) of Section 242 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC”), the learned Magistrate, by recording reasons, can permit cross examination of a witness to be postponed till a particular witness or witnesses are examined. However, in the present case, no such order was passed by the learned Magistrate. The normal rule is that witnesses shall be examined in the order laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sub-section (3) of Section 242 of the Cr.PC is the exception to the rule.
Recording only the examination-in-chief without recording cross-examination is contrary to law
7. The learned Judge seems to have adopted this method only because the High Court had fixed a time-bound schedule for the disposal of the case. He could have always sought an extension of time from the High Court. Therefore, recording only the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without recording cross-examination is contrary to the law.
De novo trial directed again to examine the witnesses already examined
9. To avoid any argument of prejudice, we direct the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to conduct a de novo trial by again examining the prosecution witnesses who have been already examined.
Party
EKENE GODWIN & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1664-1665 OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO(S).13406-13407/2023) – 2024 INSC 229 – MARCH 18, 2024.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/39253/39253_2023_8_3_51508_Judgement_18-Mar-2024.pdf
