The topic mentioned above comes under the Chapter XXIII of The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), 1973. The aforesaid chapter consists of 27 Sections from Sec. 272 to Sec. 299. In this article, the mentioned sections will be discussed in detail with their synopsis, explanations and relevant case laws if any.
The following are the included sections:
Section 272:
Summary:
a. Language of the Court: in A.L. Chandramani v. Union of India case, the court held that the Language of the Court has declared under Section 58 of the Manipur State Constitution, 1947 will continue to be enforced. On the other hand, in the case of Govind Ganesh v. R. R. Mirokhe and another the paper books in Appeal and Revision District Court are in English, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the Magistrate apart from hey recording the evidence in the case in Marathi, keeps on record its English translation.
b. Submission of investigation papers in English: an accused in a criminal case can demand copies of investigation papers to be submitted in English, although the investigation was carried out and recorded in Marathi Language.
Section 273:
Summary:
a. The general rule embodied in the section requires that evidence should be taken in presence of the accused with certain exceptions.
In Sultan v. State case, the court held that the path is directed, and proof taken without the charged it would not be void ab initio if his own participation shed by the Court and is addressed by an appropriately named legal counsellor during his non-appearance. In State of West Bengal v. Ananta Singh and Sikhraj v. State of Rajasthan cases the court held that where the lead of the accused makes it difficult to hold a reasonable preliminary in his essence in the Courtroom it is inside the force of the Court to oust him from the Courtroom. A preliminary will be vitiated even where individual participation of accused has been abstained from, yet his attorney is absent at season of recording proof.
In the State v. Hanu Dharsi Vaghri the court held that the Acquittal of the accused on the grounds of the evidence of the earlier trial is illegal.
In the case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Budhram the court held that the evidence of the prosecution witness was recorded in the absence of the accused, the individual appearance of the signals was not shed, preliminary vitiated, sentence set aside, accused acquitted. It was held that under Section 273 of the Code has the right to request the court for absolving him from individual presence and if such appeal is taken in consideration but where no such request for personal physical presence was made and granted by the court, the counsel representing the accused has no authority to inform the court that he will have no objection if evidence is recorded in the non-presence of the said accused.
According to the Supreme Court decision in Hilly v. State of Uttar Pradesh the Section actually considered exemplifies the standard of natural justice to guarantee a reasonable preliminary and keeping that in mind, the presence of the accused is basic except if in any case abstained from to direct a reasonable preliminary.
b. Presence of charged: As held by the Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai the ‘Presence of accused’ in Section 273 examines productive presence. Real actual presence is certainly not an absolute necessity.
c. Recording of Evidence: evidence by video conferencing in Open Court will be just if the witness is in a country which has an extradition treaty with India and under which laws of Contempt of Court and perjury are likewise culpable.
As held by the Court in the case Madan Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan and others it is imperative that the evidence is recorded in front of the Counsel for the accused in order to ensure reasonable preliminary. Before regarding the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court is compelled by a solemn obligation to guarantee that all the accused persons are represented by individual legal counsellors. According to the judgement by the court in the case Abdul Karim Telgi v. State at the point when the evidence is being recorded by video conferencing, the said evidence is supposed to be recorded within the sight of the accused in this way completely according to the conditions and necessity of Section 273 of Cr.P.C.
d. Recording of evidence of child victim of rape: in the case Sakshi v. Union of India the Supreme Court decided that recording of evidence through video conferencing in comparison with Section 273 of Cr.P.C is legally acceptable.
e. Acquittal without entering upon defence: According to the judgement of the court in the case Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mustafa Ahmed Dossa the hearing court can record acquittal after the legal procedure of recording of evidence of prosecution is successfully carried out, and hearing the prosecution and the defence are completed, hence there is no compelling reason to call out the accused to enter into defence.
Also read: Contemporary Issues in Labour Laws
Section 274:
Summary:
a. The Allahabad High Court in the case Hafiz Mohammad v. King Emperrar decided that the procedure of recording evidence in memorandum is not appropriate where the summons case is held by a Sessions Judge or in Summary Procedure.
b. According to the judgement of the Court in the case Abdul Rehman v. King Emperor it is crucial for a Magistrate to put his signature under the notice of substance of evidence recorded by him however the inability to do so would not without any help from anyone else vitiate the preliminary or the concluding conviction.
Section 275:
Summary:
The Court said in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chimlapati Raw case that this section covers and justly examines the oral evidence recorded for the case and not the narrative evidence cited in a warrant case.
Section 276:
Summary:
In the case Mir Mohd. Omor v. State of West Bengal The Supreme Court decided that the intention is two-folded, specifically, to guarantee that the evidence of the witness is recorded precisely and Secondly, to offer the concerned witness a chance to bring up an amendment assuming any.
The judgement by the Court in the case Sankar v. State it was found that regardless of whether the chronicle of the air of a witness was done especially in the own hand of the Judge and mostly as the account in the roundabout structure, it was inappropriate. however, considering the provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 276 that abnormality does not exist anymore.
The court in the judgement in the case Tah Moht v. Emperor held that where the Bench is contained more than one appointed judge, it isn’t fundamental that every one of the judges should sign the recorded evidence and it is adequate if just one of them puts his mark. Yet, any exclusion by the Sessions Judge to sign the recorded evidence is a simple inconsistency that can be restored by conjuring the provisions of Section 465 and won’t revoke the preliminary on that account.
यह भी पढ़ें : अधिवक्ता अधिनियम, 1961 Advocates Act, 1961
Section 277:
Summary:
a. Language of record of evidence: In the case State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao it was held that where the witness arranged under the watchful eye of the Court in the Marathi language, the Judge shall arrange the update in the English language, if there should be an occurrence of uncertainty, the Marathi form of the witness will be taken to be right.
The Court held in the judgement of the case Harminder Singh v. State that where the accused requested that investigation, papers be outfitted to him in the English language to the aftereffect of the investigation was recorded in Marathi language such interest can not be denied to the denounced on any legal basis.
b. According to the judgement by the Court in the case State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao Section 277, clauses (b) and (c) identify with the oral showed evidence and not to documentary evidence illustrated for the case.
Section 278:
Summary:
From the judgement by the Court in the case Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab it is clear that the Oversight to peruse out a statement to witness is reparable sporadically except if biasness has appeared. According to the judgement by the Court in the case Vishnu Prasad v. Proprietor Suresh Kumar Mohanlal Thakkar the Statement of witness is not read over to him, a misstep in recording the statement of the Food Inspector, quittance recorded by Lower Court maintained. Where the ideal rectification changed the previous variant of the witness refusal of the amendment was held legitimately.
Section 279:
Summary:
The Court said in the judgement that the Section requires the translation of evidence of the accused or his pleader. However, the Section has no application where the accused is hard of hearing and unable to speak.
The Court said in the case Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras that the infringement of Section 279(1) is a reparable anomaly under Section 465(1) except if bias is appeared to the accused.
Section 280:
Summary:
The judgement of the cases Venkatarama v. State and Koli Nana Bhana v. State of Gujarat states that it is a necessity of the Section that the comments in regard of the disposition of the witness ought to be made coexistent.
In the case Ganeshbhai Shankarbhai v. State of Gujarat that the comments made in the judgment will be given utmost priority by the Appellate Court in the examination of the witness.
Section 281:
Summary:
According to the case Abdul v. Raheman this section recommends the record of the assessment of the accused however, the section doesn’t have any significant bearing to outline preliminary.
Like that, in case Kausallya Devi v. State of Madras it is said that the sub-section (1) has no utilization where the accused confesses since in such case the technique set down in Section 252 will apply. In the event that the Magistrate bringing down the articulations doesn’t make any record of that he would not be skilled to oust under the watchful eye of the Court with respect to such proclamations.
Sub-section (2) as in support of the judgement by the court in the cases Akal Ali v. State and Narshima v. State of Andhra Pradesh states that the Confession proclamations recorded in story structure are acceptable in evidence albeit the phrasing of the sub-section demonstrates that it will be recorded as question and answer form.
The sub-section (3) states that the statement of the charged will be, if possible, recorded in the language in which the charged is investigated and if that is beyond the realm of imagination, in the language of the Court, the Magistrate is needed to give his explanations behind that.
The sub-section (4) according to the judgement of the Court in the cases King Emperor v. Nami and Fakir Singh v. Emperor states that in the statement that the assertion isn’t perused or disclosed or deciphered to the accused where essential, then the assertions so recorded gets forbidden in evidence.
In support of the judgment by the court in the case Abdul v. State of Maharashtra the sub-section (5) states that the sign of the accused is positive to be put on record is compulsory and any rebelliousness of such prerequisites is anything but a simple consistency that can be restored under Section 463.
As of now demonstrated, this sub-section (6) of Section 281 has no commitment on the summary trial.
Section 282:
Summary:
The interpreter when needed by any Criminal Court for the interpretation of any evidence or articulation honestly, would be profoundly ill-advised to draw in an interpreter who is a witness himself and whose evidence needs to be deciphered. Similarly, for interpretation of the evidence of a deaf and dumb witness without expert familiar with the mode of understanding the ideas conveyed by the deaf and dumb witness to other persons in real life is essential.
Section 283:
Summary:
The intention of this Section is to deliberate each High Court with rule making power resting the method where the proof of witnesses and assessment of the charged will be brought down in cases preceding it and further furnishes the necessity of conforming to such standard as outlined.
Section 284:
Summary:
Through the Court’s judgement in the case Lalit Mohan v. State of Gujarat it is observed that this section has been disseminated with determined resolution guaranteeing that witnesses in a criminal preliminary are analyzed on schedule for the closures of justice and to evade delay for certain purposes or the other.
Section 285:
Summary:
“The Commission could be addressed to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai who would depute responsible officer.”
“Where there existed no reciprocal arrangements between India and West Germany, the court will be reluctant to make any order regarding examination of witnesses on Commission in that country.”
Section 286:
Summary:
This Section correlates to Sections 599 to 605 of the old Code with drafting amendments. The Section sets out the methodology for execution of Commission issues under Section 285 of the old Code.
Also Read:
Section 287:
Summary:
The Supreme Court in the case Dharmanand v. State of Uttar Pradesh made this clear that the method to questioning witnesses in Commission via interrogatories ought to be turned to just in unavoidable conditions and the disintegration present to the officer, in this section ought to be practiced judicially and not subjectively.
Section 288:
Summary:
The judgements of the respective Courts in the cases Mohanlal v. State and Queen Empress v. A.M. Jacob it states that if the party that analyzed the witness on Commission stays from it, offering the testimony in the Court as evidence, it shall be available to the opposite party as well to dedicate the equivalent for being utilized as evidence during the preliminary.
Section 289:
Summary:
Through the judgement of the Court in the case Fazal Rahaman v. Emperor it is made clear that the said Section could not be deciphered to imply that the procedures in each preliminary ought to be appended at the occurrence however the accused in light of the fact that for witness referred to by him could not be created by serving measure upon him and further who could not be testified by giving a Commission under Section 284.
Section 290:
Summary:
The Court will be reluctant to pass on the order because the notification was ineffective for two reasons namely, that there was no reciprocal arrangement between the Government of India and the Government of West Germany ask contemplated under Section 285 of the Code nor any notification under Section 290. Secondly, the notification issued under Section 285 is nullified and repealed by the affidavit of evidence on behalf of the state.
Section 291:
Summary:
According to the case law Nanji v. State the provision of this segment would not become an integral factor when the Civil Surgeon or the clinical witness is available in the court for giving his evidence.
Section 292:
Summary:
This Section really accommodates evidence of the officials of the Mint or of the Indian Security Press for conceding into evidence.
Section 293:
Summary:
The Court said in the case Gajrani v. Emperor that the report in this Section should be a particular report. Probative estimation of such report is consistently open to weakness and subject to examination.
The Court in the case Ruben Joseph v. State states that the provision of this Section would equally apply to cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act.
The Court in sub-section (2) states that a Court has authority to issue direction.
In sub-section (3) the Court says that it is not occupant upon the concerned specialist to show up by and by in light of the summons and he may depute any mindful official working with him to go to the Court if such official is familiar with current realities of the case and sufficiently arrange in Court for the benefit of the concerned specialist.
In sub-section (4) the Court says that the Senior Officer is not shrouded in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 293 while analyzing the penmanship being referred to.
Section 294:
Summary:
The particular intention is clearly to abbreviate the interaction and try to eliminate the wastage of time of the Court by looking at the signatory of the record documented by one or the other party as far as the Section. When the defence concedes the documents, at that point no proper evidence of execution of the record is required.
Section 295:
Summary:
This Section would invite within its scope the accused in a case and if such accused sweaters of false affidavit for a transfer of a case, he is liable to prosecution swearing false affidavit. In any case, this Section has no application to any procedure under Section 145 of the Code.
Section 296:
Summary:
According to the Court’s judgement in the case Gangadharan v. Cochappi Chalapnar where a Magisterial Enquiry prior to giving a Search Warrant is called for as far as Section 94 of this Code, it could not be treated as a standard matter and as such oath of a party appealing to Court for a Search Warrant could not be conceded as evidence. The witnesses who filed affidavit are the witnesses to the occurrence and, therefore, their evidence could not be legally taken on affidavit.
Section 297:
Summary:
The Court states in the case Kamalnarayan v. Dwarka Prasad that any affidavit sworn under section 139(c) of the CPC (Civil Procedure Code, 1908) will not come within the purview of this section. However, on the off chance that the realities referenced in an transfer application depend on the information on the insight of the accused and the accused cannot verify that the substance for the application was consistent with his insight, it would be violative of the Section.
Section 298:
Summary:
This Section is not comprehensive but rather wide enough to concede auxiliary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act where the records of past conviction of the concerned accused have been lost or annihilated.
The Court said in the case City Board v. Abdul Yadav “where there is no evidence of the original judgement or record of previous conviction only the secondary documentary evidence is admissible.”
Section 299:
Summary:
The proceeding under Section 299 will not stand vitiated simply on the ground that a clear finding has not been recorded by a Magistrate to that effect.
The Supreme Court said in the case Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana that for getting the benefits full Section 299 of the Code, condition therein must be duly established and it was additionally set out that on the off chance that where there are more than one accused, and the lone accused was confronting preliminary trial and others had fled, the instance of the slipping away accused ought to be separated.
Author : Youkteshwari Prasad
