Tutorial 1 Crpc Problem
-
Upload
akshat-kamboj -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
3
Transcript of Tutorial 1 Crpc Problem
![Page 1: Tutorial 1 Crpc Problem](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022080203/577cce061a28ab9e788d1b9b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Tutorial 1
Rachel filed a police complaint against Ross for molesting her in the restroom of a
nightclub in South Delhi. During the course of their investigations, the police
recorded the statement of the only known eyewitness to the incident who stated
that Ross did in fact drag Rachel into the restroom by physically overpowering her.
The Police concluded their investigations and registered a case against Ross for
‘assaulting a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty’ under Section 354 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). One day before Ross’s trial was set to commence at
the Saket District Court complex, the Public Prosecutor is approached by Joey who
states that he was in a cubicle in the restroom and overheard the exchange between
Ross and Rachel. Joey wants to give a written statement to the police but the
Public Prosecutor tells Joey not to as his testimony is not relevant to the case; the
Public Prosecutor also withholds this information at trial. Ross is convicted and
sentenced to 3 and half years in prison by a Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court
presided over by a woman. Subsequently, Joey visits Ross at Rohini Jail and
informs him of his exchange with the Public Prosecutor. Ross decides to engage
you as his counsel and asks for your advice on the following issues:
1. Can the conviction be set aside on the basis of the Public Prosecutor’s
conduct?
2. Did the Metropolitan Magistrate have the jurisdiction to try the case and
pass the sentence that she did?
3. Despite the fact that there were several male Magistrates available, a female
Magistrate was allocated the case. Is this course of action justifiable under
the CrPC?
4. At the time of framing the charge, Ross wanted time to engage a different
lawyer to represent him. However, his request was denied by the Court as
the same lawyer had appeared for him over five times previously in hearings
related to the framing of charges. Can this denial by the Court be challenged
under Section 303?
5. Did Joey have a duty under Section 39 to assist the Police and the
Magistrate?
Please come prepared to answer these questions in the tutorial.
![Page 2: Tutorial 1 Crpc Problem](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022080203/577cce061a28ab9e788d1b9b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
This extract is taken from Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 at
pp.73-9
Role of Public Prosecutor and his duty of disclosure
183. It was argued by Mr Ram Jethmalani, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
Manu Sharma that the Prosecutor had suppressed vital evidence relating to the laboratory
reports which were useful for the defence in order to establish the innocence of the
accused. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the Prosecutor had not complied
with his duty thus violating fair trial and vitiating the trial itself.
184. It is thus important for us to address the role of a Prosecutor, disclosure
requirements if placed by the Prosecutor and the role of a Judge in a criminal trial.
185. A Public Prosecutor is appointed under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Thus, Public Prosecutor is a statutory office of high regard. This Court has
observed the role of a Prosecutor in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand [(1999) 7 SCC 467:
1999 SCC (Cri) 1277] as follows: (SCC p. 472, para 13)
“13. From the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that
prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by anyone other than the Public
Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the State that the policy must strictly conform to
fairness in the trial of an accused in a Sessions Court. A Public Prosecutor is not expected
to show a thirst to reach a conviction in the case of the accused somehow or the other
irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude of the Public
Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the
court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled
to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it.
On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the force and make it
available to the accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it, the Public Prosecutor
has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the court if it comes to his
knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed a free hand to conduct prosecution would focus
on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to be so convicted. That is the
reason why Parliament applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to the
instructions given by the Public Prosecutor.”
186. This Court has also held that the Prosecutor does not represent the investigating
agencies, but the State. This Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of
Maharashtra [(1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087] held: (SCC pp. 630-31, para 23)
![Page 3: Tutorial 1 Crpc Problem](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022080203/577cce061a28ab9e788d1b9b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
“23. … A Public Prosecutor is an important officer of the State Government and is
appointed by the State under the Criminal Procedure Code. He is not a part of the
investigating agency. He is an independent statutory authority. The public prosecutor is
expected to independently apply his mind to the request of the investigating agency
before submitting a report to the court for extension of time with a view to enable the
investigating agency to complete the investigation. He is not merely a post office or a
forwarding agency. A Public Prosecutor may or may not agree with the reasons given by
the investigating officer for seeking extension of time and may find that the investigation
had not progressed in the proper manner or that there has been unnecessary, deliberate or
avoidable delay in completing the investigation.”
187. Therefore, a Public Prosecutor has wider set of duties than to merely ensure that the
accused is punished, the duties of ensuring fair play in the proceedings, all relevant facts
are brought before the court in order for the determination of truth and justice for all the
parties including the victims. It must be noted that these duties do not allow the
Prosecutor to be lax in any of his duties as against the accused.
This extract is taken from Ashish Chadha vs. Asha Kumari AIR 2012 SC 431
8. …Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the High Court has erroneously
come to the conclusion that the first Respondent had been denied an opportunity of being
heard. In fact the first Respondent was given adequate hearing. At the penultimate stage
an application for change of counsel was made by her. Counsel submitted that this shows
mala fides and motive to delay the proceedings…
11. Counsel (for Respondent No. 1) submitted that the trial court did not allow
Respondent No. 1 to engage a counsel and framed the charge in the absence of her
counsel which has caused great prejudice to her… (Counsel submitted) Respondent No. 1
was deprived of her legitimate right under Section 303 of the Code to engage a counsel of
her choice…
16. We are also not impressed by the submission that Respondent No. 1 was denied her
right to be defended by a lawyer of her choice. From the impugned order and from the
order of learned Special Judge it is clear that the Special Judge conducted the proceedings
for framing charge on 6.12.2003, 12.12.2003, 3.1.2004, 14.1.2004, 7.2.2004, 15.3.2004,
5.4.2004, 26.4.2004, 10.5.2004, 4.6.2004, 12.7.2004, 6.12.2004, 8.12.2004, 10.12.2004
and 4.1.2005. From the Special Judge's order it is clear that Mr. Malhotra was appearing
for Respondent No. 1 and also for her husband Brijender Singh. It is pertinent to note that
during the course of the hearing the State filed its reply on 4.12.2004. The case was
![Page 4: Tutorial 1 Crpc Problem](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022080203/577cce061a28ab9e788d1b9b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
posted for consideration of charge on 8.12.2004. On 8.12.2004 co-accused Brijender
Singh raised an objection that copy of the reply dated 7.2.2004 was not supplied to him.
He was permitted to inspect the record. Shri Malhotra submitted that he was not in a
position to argue the case on charge. The request for adjournment was disallowed. Shri
Malhotra then submitted that he was ready to argue the case even on behalf of
Respondent No. 1. In fact, he advanced arguments. He, however, stated that he would
make further submissions on 10.12.2004 after inspection of the record. The case was then
adjourned to 10.12.2004. On that day neither the counsel for the first Respondent was
present nor was the first Respondent present. Respondent No. 1 made a telegraphic
request for adjournment on the ground that her mother was ill. That application was
rejected. On 4.1.2005, Shri Malhotra who had been appearing for Respondent No. 1
stated that he had no instructions to appear for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed
an application that she wanted to be defended by a counsel of her choice. Learned Special
Judge rejected the prayer and framed the charge observing that Shri Malhotra had
advanced arguments on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and since State's reply dated
4.12.2004 did not disclose any new facts adjournment was not necessary. Learned
Special Judge rejected the contention of Respondent No. 1 that Shri Malhotra was not her
counsel because order sheet of 8.12.2004 made it clear that Shri Malhotra had moved
application for exemption from personal appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
17. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted on behalf of Respondent No. 1
leads us to conclude that Respondent No. 1 wanted to delay the framing of charges. Shri
Malhotra had appeared for Respondent No. 1 and also for her husband Brijender Singh.
He had made exemption application on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1's
desire to change the horse in the midstream was obviously not genuine but was a dilatory
tactic. The High Court wrongly came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 was not
given a chance to engage a counsel of her choice. We have no hesitation in observing
that, in this case, there is no violation of Section 303 of the Code…