2011 (8) TMI 1354 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court quashes order compelling witness testimony in bribery case, stresses discretionary power

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing the Special Judge to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness in a bribery case. The ... Section 311 CrPC - Power to summon a court witness - Judicial exercise of discretion - Materiality of witness evidence - Requirement of reasons for exercise of discretionary powerSection 311 CrPC - Materiality of witness evidence - Judicial exercise of discretion - Whether the High Court was justified in directing the trial court to summon and examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness under Section 311 CrPC. - HELD THAT: - Section 311 CrPC confers a wide discretionary power on the court to summon or examine persons whose evidence appears essential for just decision of the case, but that discretion must be exercised judicially and only for ends of justice. The High Court directed the trial court to summon Smt. Ruchi Saxena without specifying how her evidence was material or essential to the issues in the bribe prosecution, and without considering the reasons given by the trial court for refusing to summon her. The record showed that Ruchi Saxena was neither a complainant nor examined during investigation, was not shown to have been present at the alleged demand or the trap, and her name did not appear in the prosecution witness list. The High Court also failed to consider the prosecution's contention that the application to summon her was a device to delay trial. In these circumstances the High Court's direction amounted to an arbitrary exercise of the wide power under Section 311 because it did not assess the relevance or necessity of her evidence, nor articulate reasons to justify overriding the trial court's conclusion. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]The High Court's direction to summon and examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena under Section 311 CrPC was set aside as an arbitrary exercise of discretion for which no sufficient reasons were stated.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court's order directing the Special Judge to summon and examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness under Section 311 CrPC is set aside and the trial court's refusal is restored. Issues Involved:1. Legality of summoning Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Examination of the necessity and relevance of Smt. Ruchi Saxena's testimony in the bribery case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of summoning Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court which directed the Special Judge, Bareilly, to summon and examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 311 consists of two parts: the discretionary power of the court to examine any witness at any stage and the mandatory duty to examine a witness if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The Court noted that this power should be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily or capriciously.The High Court's direction to summon Smt. Ruchi Saxena was found to be without proper reasoning or examination of the necessity of her testimony. The Supreme Court held that the discretionary power under Section 311 should be exercised consistently with the provisions of the Code and the principles of criminal law. The High Court failed to consider the reasons assigned by the Special Judge for rejecting the application to summon Smt. Ruchi Saxena and did not specify how her testimony was essential for the just decision of the case.2. Examination of the necessity and relevance of Smt. Ruchi Saxena's testimony in the bribery case:The prosecution's case was that the accused demanded a bribe from the appellant to settle a matter related to the construction of boundaries on disputed property. Smt. Ruchi Saxena, who was residing in the USA, had no direct involvement in the bribery case either as a complainant or a witness to the trap arranged by the police. Her name was not listed as one of the prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet. The High Court did not provide any reasoning as to why her testimony was necessary.The Supreme Court referred to the decision in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, where it was held that the court could decide not to examine certain witnesses if their testimony was not essential. Applying this principle, the Court found that Smt. Ruchi Saxena's testimony was not relevant to the bribery case, as she was neither present at the time of the bribe demand nor during the trap. The High Court's direction to examine her as a court witness was arbitrary and without examining the relevance or necessity of her evidence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing the Special Judge to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was deemed to have exercised the power under Section 311 arbitrarily. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.