Fair trial rights and defence witnesses: denial of material witness process vitiated conviction, while sanction was unnecessary.

Refusal to secure and issue process for material defence witnesses, after the court had already directed a reasonable opportunity to examine them, was treated as a breach of the mandatory procedure under section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a denial of fair trial, so the conviction could not stand. On sanction, the text notes that prosecution of the public servant accused for conspiracy and bribery did not require sanction under section 197 in the circumstances, applying the then-governing judicial authority. The convictions were set aside and the accused were acquitted because the trial was unfair, while the sanction objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refusal to issue process for the defence witnesses and the resulting inability to examine them vitiated the trial under section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code; (ii) Whether sanction under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary for prosecuting the public servant appellant for conspiracy and bribery.

Issue (i): Whether the refusal to issue process for the defence witnesses and the resulting inability to examine them vitiated the trial under section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis: The order refusing process was held to be contrary to the mandatory requirement of section 257. The earlier direction had granted the accused a reasonable opportunity to secure and examine the named witnesses because their evidence was material to rebut the prosecution case on both conspiracy and bribery. When the matter was reheard, changed circumstances made it impossible, without fault on the accused's part, to secure several of those witnesses. The denial of that opportunity deprived the accused of the chance to present material defence evidence and amounted to fair trial.

Conclusion: The trial was vitiated and the conviction could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether sanction under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary for prosecuting the public servant appellant for conspiracy and bribery.

Analysis: The question of sanction was governed by the then-relevant judicial authority, which settled that prosecution for the offences in question did not require sanction under section 197 in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: Sanction under section 197 was not required.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted because the trial had been unfair in denying them a proper opportunity to lead material defence evidence, while the sanction objection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a court has previously directed that the accused be given a reasonable opportunity to examine material defence witnesses, refusal to secure those witnesses without lawful justification violates the mandatory procedure and vitiates the conviction for denial of fair trial.

---