ORDER Shailendra Saksena, J.
1. Whether in a trial before the Court of Session, the Court seized up with the trial, can direct or require the accused to deposit or pay the expenses of the witnesses sought to be examined by him in defence?
has been raised in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code only).
2. On this point of controversy involved in this petition, I have carefully heard the learned Counsel of the parties and have perused the facts and the law on the points as well as the provisions of the Code, especially Sections 230, 233, Sub-section (3) of Section 233, Sections 243, 247, 254, and 304 of the Code.
3. The Code provides a complete procedure for conducting a criminal trial. The provisions of the Code ensure that for the purposes of trial, both the parties i.e. the prosecution and the accused stand on the same footing; there may be no discrimination between the two, so almost same or similar provisions for both the parties, have been made in the Code.
4. The provisions of the Code not only safeguard the rights of the accused, they ensure that an accused gets a fair trial and is not pre- judiced or discriminated in any manner whatsoever. Even in case he is unable to engage a pleader of his choice in serious offences, legal aid is provided to him by providing a pleader to defend him. The right given is not only a mere formality but is an essential part of a criminal and a fair trial.
5. In the Code, Offences have been categorized according to their nature and gravity, provisions have been made in the Code that offences according to their nature and gravity would be tried either by the Magistrate or Sessions Judge. The offences of graver nature, in which higher or severe punishment has been provided, are to be tried by Sessions Judge, and the rest by Magistrates. The offences have further been categorized either as summons cases or warrant cases. The offences, which are to be tried as summons cases have been further been divided in two categories either triable by summary procedure or as a summons case.
6. For trial of these cases, either it be a summons case, warrant case or a sessions trial, detail procedure has been prescribed for conducting the trial. Chapter XVIII to XXI of the Code provide the procedure of conducting these trials. Chapter XXI of the Code provides the procedure for summary trials. In such trials, on the plea of the accused and his examination, if any, the findings are recorded and thereafter final orders are passed; if the accused does not plead guilty the Magistrate also, records the substance of the evidence, and delivers the judgment, containing brief facts, reasons and findings. No sentence of imprisonment of a term exceeding three months can be passed in case of conviction in a trial conducted under these provisions.
7. Chapter XX provides procedure for trial of summons cases by Magistrate and chapter XIX of the Code provides procedure of trial of case to be treated as a warrant case by Magistrate.
8. Procedure for trial before Court of Session is provided in chapter XVIII of the Code. In all these chapters dealing with the trial and providing procedure thereof, without going into the technicalities regarding the procedure of trial, in all the trials i.e. under Chapters XVIII, XIX and XX the procedure is almost the same and similar, i.e. after the accused appears in the Court the particulars of the offence of which he is accused, is told to him and he is asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, and whether he claims to be tried, thereafter evidence which the prosecution produces, in support of the charge, is recorded and thereafter the accused is heard and the evidence which the accused produces in his defence, is taken. In trials of summons cases by a Magistrate under chapter XX, the prosecution has to produce its witnesses, but on an application of the prosecution, Magistrate may issue summons, directing the witness to attend the Court or to produce document or other things, but before summoning on such application, the Magistrate, 'may require' that reasonable expenses of witnesses, incurred in attending, for purposes of trial, be deposited in Court (Section 254 of the Code) similar provisions in trial of warrant cases by Magistrates for summoning witness have been provided in Section 243(3) of the Code, which deals with procedure of trial of warrant cases by the Magistrate.
9. But if the offence is triable by a Court of Session, the only requirement is application of the prosecution, for issue of process for compelling the attendance of any witness or production of document or other things is issued, the prosecution is not required to deposit or pay any expenses.
10. The relevant provision in the Code, is as follows--
Section 254. Procedure when not convicted-- If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 252 or Section 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence.
(2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court."
11. Relevant for the purposes is Sub-section (3).
12. In trial of warrant cases, the witnesses sought to be examined by prosecution are summoned under Sub-section (2) of Section 242(1), which reads as follows :
"(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing."
13. In trial by Court of Session, Section 230 deals with summoning the witness, the prosecution proposes to examine, it is as follows:
Section 230. Date for prosecution evidence -- If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claim to be tried or is not convicted under Section 229, the Judge shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses, and may, on the application of the prosecution, issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing."
14. A study of these provisions make it clear that as the nature and the gravity of the offences increases i.e. from summons trial to warrant trial, and to Sessions trial, the discretion of Courts to summon witnesses decreases.
15. In trial of cases as summons case, the Magistrate before summoning 'may require' reasonable expenses of the witnesses incurred in attending for the purpose of trial to be deposited in Court, in trials of warrant cases, the Magistrate has to procure the presence of the witnesses, the prosecution purposes to examine, but in trial under this procedure, i.e. procedure of trial for warrant case, he has no discretion to ask or direct for the deposit of reasonable expenses, of the prosecution witnesses to be incurred by a witness in attending the trial (Sub-section (2) of Section 242), so also is the procedure in summoning of the witnesses in trials before the Court of Session, it has been provided in all cases that process for compelling the attendance of witness or production of a documents or other things may be issued.
16. Either it be a trial for which procedure of a summons case or warrant case or session trial has been adopted. Similar are the provisions for summoning the defence witness, the accused proposes to examine in his defence, when he is called upon to enter on his defence, after conclusion of the evidence of prosecution; in the procedure that has been prescribed for trials of summons cases for summoning the witnesses, sought to be examined by accused in his defence. Section 254 of the Code provides that when accused is not convicted, the Court will hear the accused and take all such evidence he produces in his defence.
17. Sub-section (2) of this Section is as follows.
"(2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
and Sub- section (3) provides, (3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court."
18. This procedure applies to all the witnesses either summoned by prosecution or accused.
19. In trial of warrant cases by Magistrate Section 243 provides as follows:--
Section 243. Evidence for defence- (1) The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused, puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record.
(2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by. him in writing.
Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.
(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under Sub-section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court."
20. In trial before the Court of Session, the procedure after prosecution has closed its evidence, has been provided in Section 233 of the Code, which is as follows:-- , "Section 233.-- Entering upon defence--(1) Where the accused is not acquitted under Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence-he may have in support thereof."
Sub-section (2). If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record.
Sub-section (3). If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
21. A study of these provisions relating to the summoning of witnesses, sought to be examined by the accused, in his defence make it clear that as was the case with prosecution witnesses, so is the case with the summoning of the witnesses, whom the accused wants to examine, in his defence, after he is called upon to enter upon his defence, he as per the provision of the Code stands on the same footing, there is no difference; he has been given a right to request the Court for issuance of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for purposes of examination or cross-examination or the production, of any, document, or other things; in trials of summons case and warrant case by Magistrate the difference is that the Magistrate before summoning any witness 'may require' reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of trial to be deposited in the Court.
22. In trials to be conducted by Sessions Judge, in the procedure given in Chapter XXVIII, no provision for depositing of the expenses to be incurred by witness sought to be examined by accused for attending the Court, for purposes of trial has been made, hence this controversy has arisen in this trial and has been challenged in this petition/although uniform provisions of trial, either it be a trial by Sessions Judge or by Magistrate as summons case or as warrant case, have been made and in all trials the same procedure has been made applicable, the only ground on which the Court may refuse the prayer of the accused is that the Court considers that such application should be refused, on the ground that it has been made, for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice, besides refusing to summon the defence witness on the above grounds no other ground has been provided. In trials of cases as summons case or trial of warrant cases provision has been made that the Magistrate may, before summoning any witness 'may require' reasonable expenses, incurred by the witness to be deposited in the Court, but Hon'ble the Patna High Court in the case of Debi Singh v. King Emperor reported in AIR 1924 Patna 142, had laid down that "inability or even refusal to pay the cost of the witness, would not be adequate ground for the Magistrate to refuse to issue process for the defence witness, it is mandatory and the Magistrate is bound to issue process to the defence witness, unless he considers that the application should be refused on the ground that it was made for the purposes of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such grounds should be recorded. Same principle of law were laid down and were reiterated by Hon'ble Orissa High Court, in the case of Raghubir Dayal Saxena v. The State, reported in 1957 Cr LJ 148 and also by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Chaudhary Venekate Swami Rao v. State, reported in 1979 Cr LJ 255 and by Kerala High Court in the case of T. N. Janardhenan Filial v. State, reported in 1992 Cr LJ 436. In view of principles of law laid down in the above noted cases, it is clear that the Court is not empowered to insist that expenses of witnesses sought to be examined by the accused be deposited or paid by the accused. The only ground, on which the Court case refuse to summon the witness is that summoning of the witnesses is for purpose of delaying the trial or is vexation or would defeat the ends of justice, but for rejecting the summoning the witnesses on this ground, reasons are to be recorded.
23. Whether it be a Sessions Trial of a summons case, warrant case or summary trial, right of the accused to adduce evidence of his choice whom he considers it necessary, is a part of fair trial and comes into play when trial commences and at the stage when accused is asked and has to adduce evidence in his defence. Accused has been given the right to summon witnesses, in his defence whom he wants to produce; for which detailed provisions have been made in the Code. Accused has been given the right to request the Court to issue summons and for securing the attendance of such witness, he also has been given the right to insist upon the Court to issue summons or process, is also clear from the provisions of the Code which have been mentioned above and are part of procedure which regulate the trials.
24. In trials before the Court of Session, also when the accused is called upon to enter his defence, (under Section 233) and adduce evidence he may have, in support thereof, he can request the Court to issue process for securing the presence of any such witness.
25. For purposes of adducing any evidence in defence, unlike Sub-section (3) of Section 243 or Section (3) of Section 254, the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 233 do not lay down any such precondition that before summoning any witness, the Court 'may require' that the reasonable expenses be deposited in the Court. Had there been any such intention it would certainly would have found mention in Sub-section (3) of Section 233 of the Code, which deals with evidence for defence, in trial of offences before Court of Session. This conditions finds mention in Sections 243(3) & 254(3) which provide procedure for trial of summons cases and warrant cases before Magistrate.
26. The trial by the Court of Session is for graver offences separate provisions have been made for trial, the accused may not suffer or prejudice may not be caused to him, no such precondition has been laid down in Sub-section (3) of Section 233 which deals with summoning of defence witness that the Court may require or direct the deposit of expenses to be incurred by witness in attending the Court, if there was to be any such condition, such condition or provision as given in the case of summons case or warrant case (Sections 243(3), 254(3)) would have also found mention in Sub-section (3) of Section 233 of the Code; which provide for the procedure of trial in sessions trial; after the accused has been called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. Provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 233 of the Code make it clear that if the accused applies for issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness document or thing the Judge shall issue process. Provision has been made that such prayer can only be refused only on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice and reason and refusal of this ground has to be recorded. On this ground summoning of witness can be refused in any type of trial whether it be a summon case or a warrant case seen in this context and what has been mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 233. It is clear that the Court is not empowered to insist on a condition, not provided in the Code, especially when such conditions finds mention in procedure for other types of trial be it a summons case or warrant case, in trial before Magistrate.
27. The right of the accused to get his witness summoned he wants to examine in defence has been recognized as his inherent right a part of fair trial.
28. The right given and recognized in the Code is not a mere formality but is an essential part of a criminal trial. Every opportunity has to be given to the accused to adduce evidence he wants to be produce in his defence. It is for the accused and not for the Judge to say which of the witness he would produce or what evidence or what amount of evidence he thinks proper to place on record, in his defence, this right has been accepted so much so that even in cases where an accused had already cross-examined a witness or had the opportunity of cross examining a prosecution witness he has a right to ask for examination or cross- examination of that witness, at the stage of defence evidence. Right of the Court to deny an opportunity for defence evidence" is only limited to cases where the Court is satisfied, for the reasons to be recorded that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for . the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
29. The provisions of the Code not only safeguard the rights of the accused, they also ensure that accused gets a fair trial and ensure that if the accused wants to adduce any evidence in his defence, the Court shall ensure that he gets a proper opportunity to adduce the same. He stands on the same footing as was the prosecution and he cannot be discriminated so far production of witness is concerned. This right of the accused is not a mere formality but it is an essential part of a criminal trial. Every opportunity has to be given to the accused so that he may adduce evidence in his defence. The Court in the trial, has to ensure that the accused gets a fair and proper opportunity to defend himself, so in graver offences provision has also been made, for providing legal aid to the accused, at the expense of the State. The entitlement of free legal aid is also not dependent on the accused making an application to that effect, the Court seized up with the trial, is obliged to inform the accused of his right to obtain legal aid, Section 304 of the Code provides that in trial before the Court of Session if the accused facing trial is not represented by a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence, at the expense of the State. So in spite of this provision in the Code for free legal aid, if the accused is asked for to pay for the expenses of the witness not only the very object of this provision but the whole concept of fair trial may get frustrated and defeated.
30. I find merits in the contention that free legal aid is provided to the accused in session trial only with a view that accused may defend himself properly and concept of fair trial, may not get frustrated, for want of legal aid; fair trial may also not be possible if the accused is compelled to pay for. the expenses of witnesses, he wants to adduce in his defence, in view of these facts it cannot be insisted that the accused should bear the cost of summoning the witness, to be produced in defence. If the prosecution can get its witness summoned through process of Court the accused cannot be discriminated, he has a similar right to insist that his witness may also be summoned in the same manner, without deposit of any expense and he cannot be compelled to deposit the same. It was also argued that if insistence for payment is made, prejudice may be caused and fair trial may not be ensured or would not be possible. It would amount to imposing a condition, contrary to the very concept of fair trial, in view of above facts also. I find merits in this contention also.
31. The right given to the accused for getting his witness summoned, he wants to examine in his defence is a statutory right, which has been recognized in the Code and given to the accused to defend him after the prosecution has closed its evidence and when accused has been called upon to enter upon his defence, he as per provisions of the Code can exercise this right without any restriction or bar. When the accused exercises such a right the Court is obliged to allow it and summon such witness he wants; the only impediment to this right is that the Court has to be satisfied with the genuineness and bona fides of the prayer, for summoning of such witness, the Court has to see that it is not intended to delay or defeat the ends of justice or has been made for purpose of vexation or delay if it is not so the witness has to be summoned, this act of summoning the defence witness by the Court is one which is intended to promote the ends of justice and fair trial, otherwise the very intent or purpose of this right shall stand defeated, Courts are concerned with dispensation of justice, the concept of fair trial and fair opportunity to accused may not get, defeated or frustrated, and to achieve the ends whatever steps are necessary in this direction, the Court should not hesitate to pursue, allow it, otherwise the very concept of fair trial would stand frustrated.
32. In this connection, I have also perused the provisions of Sections 313 and 314 of the Code which provide that the Court will examine the accused personally so that he may explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him and if he is so examined, no oath would be administered to him and if he refuses to answer any question or give false answers, no punishment can be given to him and answers given by him in enquiry or trial, or put in evidence, for or against him, may be taken into consideration, he has been given right to file written memorandum also, he under provisions of Section 315 of the Code is a competent witness for defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of charges made against him, but he cannot be compelled to be a witness except on his own request in writing, his failure to give evidence cannot be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or may not give rise to any presumption against him or any person charged together with him, at the trial; and except as provided in Sections 306 and 307 of the Code, no influence by any means of any power or threat or otherwise shall be used to induce the accused to disclose or withhold any matter within his knowledge. In this connection Sections 317 and 318 of the Code also safeguard his rights and ensure that the accused is not at all prejudiced and his fair trial is ensured.
33. There is no provision in the Code which prevents the Court from summoning the witness or production of any document or thing at the expense of the State. If the accused is facing trial before a Magistrate, . and accused has no means to pay for the expense of his witness, sought to be examined in defence the expenses are to be paid by the State, the witness of defence are to be summoned at the expenses of the State, words used in Sub-section (3) of Section 243 are 'may require' mean that Court has discretion and power to exonerate the accused from paying the reasonable expenses to be incurred by the witness in attending the Court, for the purpose of trial, absence of words 'may require' or any such condition which may require for depositing the expense, in Sub-section (3) of Section 233, make it clear that requirement of payment of deposit of expenses of witness to be examined by accused in his defence is no condition for issuing process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of document or thing. Since no such condition has been engrafted in the provisions of the Code the trial Court cannot ask or compel the accused or require that any expenses incurred by witness in attending for purpose of trial be paid or deposited by the accused.
34. Accordingly I hold and find that in a trial before a Court of Session, the Court cannot direct or require the accused to deposit or pay the expenses of the witnesses sought to be examined by accused in his defence, the only condition on which any such prayer of accused can be refused is that such prayer has been made on the ground or for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and these reasons for refusing has to be recorded. No other condition can be imposed by the Court i. e. by the Court of Session nor is recognized by the Code.
35. In the present case, in which the impugned order dated 21 -8-2003 has been challenged, the annexures which have been filed along with this petition go to show that initially in a mechanical manner this prayer of the accused for summoning witnesses in defence was allowed on 2-7-2003. The prayer was repeated in the application dated 28-7-2003 and same order was repeated and in the order sheet, it was also mentioned that steps have been taken, but when the same prayer was repeated on 21 -8-2003 when the case was fixed for evidence of defence witness, the Court remarked that steps have not been taken, it was mentioned that witnesses are public witnesses and their addresses are not known; How this fact has been mentioned remains a guess, because copy of application dated 2-7-2003 has been filed and in it addresses have been given, vide the impugned order dated 21 -8-2003 the Court had also directed that Rs. 50.000/- be deposited to defray the expenses of the defence witness sought to be summoned by accused in defence (Annexure-1).
36. As has been observed above, the Court could not have insisted or could not have directed for the deposit of the expenses of the witness sought to be examined in defence by the accused.
37. A perusal of the orders passed by the Court below on the point of summoning defence witnesses, go to show that orders have been passed in a most mechanical manner, the Court seized up with the trial, will reconsider the prayer made through these applications for summoning witness in defence and dispose them off in accordance with law. Orders dated 21-8-2003, 2-7-2003 and 28-7-2003, copy of which have been filed as Annexure Nos. 1, SA3, SA-3A are set aside.
38. The learned trial Court is also directed to dispose of this trial at a very early date because the trial is pending since the year 1995 and it appears that accused was called upon to enter into their defence in the year 2002 (2003).