Trial Courts Dealing With CBI/ ACB Cases Should Not Hastily Close Evidence Of Trap Laying Officer, Official Witnesses: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Registrar General to issue Circular to all Trial Court judges dealing with Central Bureau of Investigation/ Anti Corruption Bureau (CBI/ACB) cases to stop hasty closing of 'Trap Laying Officer' and Official witnesses. "It is desirable to issue appropriate Circular by the High Court to all the trial Judges, who are dealing with CBI/ACB cases, not to close the evidence of Trap Laying Officer or official witnesses hastily without exhausting all the measures in securing the presence of the witnesses for their evidence. In this regard, the Registrar General may take appropriate steps for the issuance of such circular. "The Bench of Justice Duppala Ventaka Ramana has passed the Order while disposing of a quashing petition filed to set aside the Order of the Trial Court in dismissing the recall and reopen petition filed by the ABC; in a case where the offending officer was charged under section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification.The Court took serious note of the fact that without taking any coercive steps against the Officers, their evidence was closed"In spite of the Circulars issued by the High Court not to close the official witnesses unless and until coercive steps are taken by addressing letters to the Higher Authorities concerned, the evidence of those witnesses was closed. In a case of this nature, if the evidence of such witnesses is closed, entire exercise of the Investigation Agency would turn futile and also it leads to entertaining a doubt about the integrity of the trial Judge."The Petition before the High Court was filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) challenging the dismissal order for recalling the Trap Laying Officer and the Inspector who helped the Trap Laying Officer. The counsel on behalf of petitioner S.M.Subhani contended that the testimony of the Trap Laying Officer was extremely crucial as the entire cases depended on it.Advocate Subhani stated that the two Trap Laying Officers conducted pre and post trap proceedings, seized the bribe amount, arrested the accused officer, sent him for judicial remand and examined the witnesses. He stated that without their evidence the case would be futile. He further submitted that the Officers were busy in 'election bandobast' and even sent a recording to the Trial Court praying to grant leave for their absence. The petitioner Counsel lastly averred that section 311 of CrPC imposes a duty on the Court 'to determine the truth and to render a just decision.'The Counsel on behalf of the accused officer C. Sharan Reddy on the other hand submitted that the deposing officers were not present before the court on many occasions, and as the directions given by the Supreme Court, all cases are to be disposed in a time bound manner; hence, the Trial Court was right in passing the impugned order.The Court after hearing both sides and going through the records held that, that was no indication that there was laxity on part of the officers. The Court further held that although Supreme Court has directed for justice to be speedy, "that does not mean that the cases have to be disposed of without giving a fair and just opportunity to the Investigating Officers, though their evidence is very much required for disposing of the cases. An opportunity ought to have been offered by the trial Court.”The Court also held that the Trial Court can examine a petition filed under section 311 of the CrPC at any time during the proceedings, and is duty bound to find 'where in fact, the truth lies' by examining the essential witnesses."Therefore, the Order of the trial Court cannot be sustained in the light of the legal positions referred to supra. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned Order is contrary to the scope and ambit of Section 311 Cr.P.C., and also the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court."Case Title: State ACB represented by Inspector of Police vs. M. Balakrishna reddy (Revenue Officer) (51)Date: 26-7-2023Click Here To Read/Download Order

Trial Courts Dealing With CBI/ ACB Cases Should Not Hastily Close Evidence Of Trap Laying Officer, Official Witnesses: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags