Punjab and Haryana High Court for tips to subordinate officers on ensuring witness attendance

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 2

The Punjab and Haryana High Court wants subordinate judicial officers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to go back to the benches for being guided about the ways of ensuring attendance of witnesses and execution of court process.

The High Court has asked the Chandigarh Judicial Academy to include “appropriate material” with special focus on “compelling the attendance of witnesses and execution of court process” in training and refresher courses for judicial officers. The order’s copy was directed to be circulated among judicial officers in the two states and UT.

Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi asserted that the complainant, police officer, prosecutor and accused did not have any power or authority to grab a witness and drag him to the witness box Justice Tyagi observed that they were wholly dependent either on willingness of witnesses to appear or the court’s assistance for securing their presence. Even where the witness was a police officer, government servant or employee of an agency or state instrumentality, the administrative superior lacked the authority to issue coercive process.

They could initiate disciplinary action for non-appearance, which could take a sufficiently long time and not have the immediate effect of ensuring appearance. As such, the complainant, prosecution or accused could not be saddled with the responsibility to produce witnesses. The court could not decline its assistance in securing their presence.

Justice Tyagi asserted: “In the administration of criminal justice, a duty is also cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means. If the prosecution or accused fails to discharge responsibility in producing witnesses, the court cannot absolve itself of its responsibility to summon and examine all witnesses whose evidence appears to be essential for a just decision of the case.” Justice Tyagi added that the court was required to exercise its powers to ensure the presence of all material witnesses, whose examination was essential for just decision.

WHAT THE BENCH HELD

• The court cannot close prosecution or defence evidence on the grounds of failure of the prosecution or accused to produce the same, without genuine and sincere efforts to secure the attendance of prosecution or defence witnesses
• Prosecution evidence can be closed in case of gross neglect, deliberate delay, remissness or misconduct on the prosecution’s part as prolonged trial will amount to complete denial of fundamental right of speedy trial to the accused
• Defence evidence can be closed where there is deliberate delay to prolong the trial and court’s assistance for summoning defence witnesses can be declined only where the plea is for vexation, delay or defeating the ends of justice

.