Skip to content


G. Thirupaliah Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 243 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1966AP223; 1966CriLJ745
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 257(2); Madras Criminal Practice Rules, 1931 - Rule 384; Madras Criminal Practice Order, 1931
AppellantG. Thirupaliah
RespondentState
Appellant AdvocateK. Jayachandra Reddy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK. Somakonda Reddy, Adv. for ;O. Chinnappa Reddy, Public Prosecutor
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
criminal - expenses of defence witnesses - section 257 (2) of criminal procedure code, 1898 and rule 384 of rules of practice and orders, 1931 (madras) - appellant prosecuted for defaming government officer - appellant cited defence witnesses - question raised who will bear charges for defence witnesses - payment of expenses of defence witnesses would be in furtherance of interests of public justice in prosecution proceedings carried by public officer - held, expenses for defence witnesses would be paid by lower court under rule 384. - .....judge or magistrate presiding over such courts to be directly in furtherance of the interests of public justice............'4. the complaint was filed by the public prosecutor under section 198b of the cr. p. c. sub-section (3) of that section runs as follows:'no complaint under sub-section (1) shall be made by the public prosecutor except with the previous sanction .......................... (c) in the case of any other public servant in connection with the affairs of the union or of a state, of the government concerned.' obviously, the public prosecutor filed the complaint on the basis of sanction by the government for filing of such complaint. the government unit sanctioned such filing of a complaint because it considered necessary to do so for furtherance of the interests of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.

1. In C. C. No. 2 of 1964, the Public Prosecutor filed a complaint against one Thirupalaiah complaining of an offence under Section 500 I. P. C. for having defamed a Government servant viz. Tahsildar in the discharge of his duties. In that case, the accused cited defence witnesses. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah has passed an order directing the accused to deposit reasonable charges for the defence witnesses. The petitioner filed this petition to revise the above order.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the order on the basis of Section 257(2) Cr. P. C. It is mentioned in the said section that the Magistrate may require reasonable expenses of witnesses to be deposited in the Court.

3. Rule 384 of the Criminal Rules of Practice runs as follows:

'..,,... the Criminal Courts will pay, at the rates specified in Rule 387, the expenses of complainants and witnesses in cases in which the prosecution is instituted or carried on by, or under the orders or with the sanction of the Government, or of any Judge, Magistrate or other Public Officer, when it snail appear to the Judge or Magistrate presiding over such Courts to be directly in furtherance of the interests of public justice............'

4. The complaint was filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 198B of the Cr. P. C. Sub-section (3) of that section runs as follows:

'No complaint under Sub-section (1) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction ..........................

(c) in the case of any other public servant in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, of the Government concerned.'

Obviously, the Public Prosecutor filed the complaint on the basis of sanction by the Government for filing of such complaint. The Government unit sanctioned such filing of a complaint because it considered necessary to do so for furtherance of the interests of justice. The trial oi this case is held in the interests of justice. The prosecution is conducted in the interests of justice. The presence of prosecution witnesses is secured by payment of batta to them at Govt.'s test because their examination is necessary in the interests of justice to enable them to depose to facts which would show that defamation was committed. It would be equally in the interests of justice to give facility for letting in evidence of defence witnesses which would show that the accused did not commit the offence.

It cannot be said that prosecution evidence, which would aim at showing that the accused committed the offence, is only in the interests of justice and that the letting in of any other evidence, even if it be called defence evidence, is not in the interests of justice. For, the interests of justice required that the court should ascertain and give a decision whether the accused committed the offence or did not commit the offence. It is not as if the interests of justice required that the Court should invariably decide that the accused committed the offence. So payment of batta to every witness, whose evidence enables the Court to decide whether the accused be guilty or not, whether it be prosecution evidence, is done in the interests of justice. Therefore, in any prosecution instituted and carried on by a Public Officer, payment of expenses of defence witnesses also would be in furtherance of the interests of public justice so as to enable the accused to prove that he has not committed the offence which is concerned in the case,

5. In the result, I allow this revision, setaside the order of the lower Court and hold thatbatta for the defence witnesses should bepaid by the lower Court under Rule 384 of theCriminal Rules of Practice.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //