S.233 CrPC | Accused Has Right To Summon Defence Witnesses, Court's Interference Is Limited: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that courts cannot ordinarily interfere in accused's rights under Section 233 CrPC to produce defence witnesses. It held that if the Court refuses to issue summons to witnesses sought to be produced by the accused then it can only do so by recording reasons in writing and observing that such summons would delay or defeat the cause of justice.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held,
“Under section 311 Cr.P.C., the power lies in the courts only and under section 233 Cr.P.C., the right lies with the accused and the court's interference is limited. The court can only refuse to issue summons on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice only.”
Applicant is being tried under Sections 302, 342, 506, 34 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act, wherein maximum punishment upto death penalty is provided. Since the applicant was not acquitted under Section 232 CrPC, he applied for adducing evidence under Section 233 CrPC. However, his application was rejected. Accordingly, he approached the High Court.
It was pleaded that the applicant was not in India at the time of the incident and had shown his passport and immigration stamps to prove the same. He applied to the Trial Court to summon the concerned officer from the Passport Office Dehradun and concerned Officer from the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, East Block VIII, Level-5, Sector-1, Ram Krishna Puram, New Delhi. However, this application was rejected.
The Court observed that if the accused files an application under Section 233 of CrPC for compelling presence of witnesses, the Court concerned must issue process unless it observed that the same would be vexatious or delay the trail and defeat the cause of justice.
“Section 233 Cr.P.C. finds place under Chapter XVIII titled as 'trial before a court of session'. This provision is essential part of session trial and is applicable when the prosecution evidence is complete and the accused is given an opportunity to produce the evidence in its defence.”
“Undoubtedly, this right has been given to the defence to produce its witnesses as part of fair trial and as part of legal principle of hearing both the sides. In my opinion, here the right belongs to the accused and not to the court concerned, in the sense that the court concerned shall ordinarily issue process and can decline to summon the witness only for the reason that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.”
The Court held that the Trial Court had not rejected the grounds mentioned in the application seeking production of witnesses. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS was allowed.
Case Title: Inderpal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another