RECORD REASONS FOR DEFFERING EVIDENCE : PANJAB, HARYANA H.C. MANDATED TO SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY
25 Jan 2009, 0249 hrs IST, TNN
Text:
To check inordinate delays in conclusion of trials, the Punjab and Haryana high court has mandated the subordinate judiciary in Punjab, Haryana and the union territory of Chandigarh to henceforth explain reasons for deferring the recording of statements by witnesses in writing.
Giving this order while hearing a plea seeking more time to wrap up a trial which was to conclude last December, justice S D Anand observed that some courts record examination-in-chief of witnesses on one date and adjourn it for cross-examination on another.
"There have been instances where such a witness would turn hostile on getting back to the trial court for cross examination. Also, there might well be an eventuality where a trial court, for a valid cause, required to adjourn cases after recording testimony of a witness. In that eventuality, an interim order/evidence sheet must compulsively note down the reasons for deferment," the order, passed on Friday, stated.
According to justice Anand, while disposing of a bail plea of an undertrial, Ranjit Singh, lodged in Ludhiana jail in connection with an FIR registered on June 27, 2006, at police station Raikot (Ludhiana) under various sections of IPC and arms Act, the court had directed the lower court to conclude trial by December 31, 2008.
While forwarding the trial court's request for one-year extension, the district and sessions judge, Ludhiana, had stated that delay was caused on account of non-production of the undertrial by the authorities at Tihar jail, Delhi, where the accused is presumably to be lodged in connection with some other trial against him in the national capital.
Reacting to the ruling, a section of the city-based lawyers claimed "it would help make the trial court accountable". The time gap between the witnesse's examination and cross examination has often been seen as that of "tutoring", said advocate H C Arora. "It invariably aids cover-up on the part of the witness, who learns tactics of manipulation in the intervening period."
Advocate Tanu Bedi, the defence counsel in a Panchkula murder case of a retired Army officer and his wife, claimed, "The process of recording witnesses evidence, among other things, should indeed be carried on a day-to-day basis. The new high court order would help expedite trial," he said.
Expressing similar sentiments, advocate Divya Godara added that speedy justice would be good for both ^ the litigants and witnesseses ^ who invariably feel harassed after repeated visits to the court.
