A bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, D K Jain and Mukundakam Sharma upheld the order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court acquitting an accused in a case of alleged smuggling of 56 kg of heroin from across the border, on the grounds that the accused was not confronted with the specific allegations against him during the trial.
The judges noted, "The position has to be considered in the present set-up, particularly after the lapse of more than a quarter of a century through which period revolutionary changes in the technology of communication and transmission have taken place, thanks to the advent of computerisation.
"There has been marked improvement in the facilities for legal aid in the country during the preceding 25 years. Hence, fresh look can be made now." The apex court made the observation with reference to a Law Commission Report, which said Section 342 CrPc (currently, Section 313 of the CrPc) should not be deleted at present but with further increase in literacy with better facilities for legal aid, it may be possible to take that step in future.
The apex court also said, "With the revolutionary change in technology of communication and transmission and the marked improvement in facilities for legal aid in country, is it necessary that in all cases, accused must answer by personally remaining present in court.
"We clarify that this is the requirement and would be the general rule. However, if remaining present involves undue hardships and large expense, could the court not alleviate the difficulties?" "If the court holds the view that the situation in which he made such a plea if genuine, should the court say that he has no escape but must undergo all the tribulations and hardships and answer such questions personally presenting himself in court.
It was of the view that if there are other accused in the same case and the court has already completed their questioning should they too wait for long without their case reaching finality or without registering further progress of their trial until their co accused is able to attend the court personally and answer the court questions? Why should a criminal court be rendered helpless in such a situation? "We think that a pragmatic and human approach is warranted in regard to such special exigencies." Morphine heroin, worth Rs 56 crore in the international market, was seized on July 1, 1995 by an army patrolling party after noticing suspicious movement of some infiltrators.
Later appellants Yashpal and Hakikat Singh were arrested along with third accused Paramjeet Singh on the charges of indulging in smuggling of drugs on the Indo-Pak border.
The apex court dismissed the appeal of the Customs department, Jammu and Kashmir.
"Loved reading this piece by M. PIRAVI PERUMAL?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Tags : Criminal Law
Views 213 Report
