2002 (1) TMI 1313 - HC - Customs

Court Upholds Fair Trial Directive in Corruption Cases, Emphasizes Importance of Adherence to Legal Undertakings

The court held that quashing the impugned summons at a pre-trial stage in corruption cases is improper as it would pre-empt the trial. It emphasized that ... - Issues Involved:1. Quashing of impugned summons.2. Whether the facts alleged in FIR No.2-AC-2000 and charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 arise from the same transaction as Crime No.13/AC/96.3. Violation of undertakings given in Letters Rogatory issued under Section 166-A Cr.P.C.4. Directions/orders required to meet the ends of justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Quashing of Impugned SummonsThe court held that the burden of proof in corruption cases shifts to the accused once the prosecution establishes certain facts. It is not permissible to quash the summons at a pre-trial stage as this would pre-empt the trial. The accused can present their defense during the trial. Therefore, the court concluded that it is improper to quash the impugned summons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage.Issue 2: Same Transaction AllegationThe court noted that determining whether the facts in FIR No.2-AC-2000 and charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 arise from the same transaction as Crime No.13/AC/96 is complex and should not be decided at a pre-trial stage. It would be unsafe to conclude this without a full trial. The court emphasized that quashing the process at this stage would be inappropriate and could lead to a miscarriage of justice. Thus, it is not within the court's purview to decide this issue under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Issue 3: Violation of Undertakings in Letters RogatoryThe court highlighted the importance of adhering to the undertakings given in Letters Rogatory issued under Section 166-A Cr.P.C. The evidence collected through these Letters Rogatory should be used only for the specific case for which they were issued. Any violation of this undertaking would render the trial unfair and the evidence inadmissible. The court found that the prosecution's use of evidence gathered under Letters Rogatory for a different case (C.C.No.2 of 2001) than the one it was intended for (Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997) was a violation that vitiated the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2001.Issue 4: Directions/Orders RequiredThe court directed that the records and evidence gathered in FIR No.2-AC-2000 and charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 should be transferred to the Designated Court handling Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997. The Designated Court should then decide the appropriate course of action, whether to issue summons based on the new evidence as a supplementary report or to take fresh cognizance and proceed accordingly. The court emphasized the need for a fair trial and directed the Designated Court to expedite the process and conclude the trial within six months.Conclusion:The petitions were dismissed with specific directions to transfer the records to the Designated Court, ensuring a fair trial and adherence to the undertakings given in the Letters Rogatory. The court also appreciated the assistance provided by the Amicus Curiae.