February 20, 2019:
Recently, Hon’ble Justice R.K. Gauba of Delhi High Court observes that the manner in which the proceedings have been held and the manner in which the petitioner has conducted the prosecution gives the impression it is more of persecution than prosecution.
Court highlights, “The prosecution of a criminal case is a serious business. A total casual and callous approach instead seems to have been adopted by the petitioner, and its representatives, and indeed the counsel representing the department. The part deposition of PW-1, as was recorded on 09.11.1994, itself is a good illustration to record the above observations.
It is a sad commentary on the control of the proceedings by the ACMM, such that no care was taken to ensure that the documents were properly exhibited. PW-1 was never called upon by the prosecutor to prove the sanction, his attention not being drawn to it. The sanctioning authority (or anyone else in its lieu) was never called upon to appear and prove the sanction.”
High Court states that it is the duty of the prosecutor to ensure that all such evidence is properly and formally adduced. It is not a private prosecution but prosecution in the name of an entity of the State. The prosecutor had a duty of trust to discharge. He could not assume that the witness would himself offer all the necessary facts.
After all, the witness was a public servant holding the rank of an inspector. He required assistance and, for his chief-examination, proper questions had to be put to him by the prosecutor.
The failure to bring formal evidence in respect of sanction for prosecution, in these circumstances, is wholly and squarely that of the public prosecutor in-charge. He should have fully awakened to the neglect or omission on his part at least at the time of arguments on charge. The omission to adduce proof of sanction was an issue being raised by the respondent anterior to the order dated 27.01.2010 of the ACMM.
Court observes and states, “…..The least that the prosecutor could have done at that stage was to move appropriate application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and either examine PW-1 further or to summon any other witness so that the proof of sanction had been tendered. No such steps were taken. Instead, the prosecutor continued to harp on the plea that he had discharged his burden, as if standing on some ego.”
In the present case, no formal proof of sanction document has been adduced through any witness.
Petitioners prayer for one more opportunity for such purposes, by invoking the inherent power of high court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the general power of the court to summon any other witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for just decision of the case.
High Court reiterates that the criminal prosecution of such nature cannot be allowed to be reduced to a mockery, not the least, at the
whims of individuals. After all, public interest involved in such prosecution also has to be taken care of.
Read Judgment @ LatestLaws.com