Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4560 of 2012) and Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4561 of 2012). Case: V.K. Sasikala Vs State rep. by Superintendent of Police. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4560 of 2012) and Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4561 of 2012) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shekhar Naphade, V. Giri, Rakesh Dwivedi, R. Venkataramani, T.R. Andhiyarujina, Shunmugasundaram, Sr. Advs., Senthil, Mani Shankar, A. Ashokan, M.P. Parthiban, S.R. Setia, B. Balaji, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Rama Subramanian and Soumik Ghosal, Advs. |
| Judges | P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ. |
| Issue | Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1), 13(2); Indian Penal Code - Section 120B; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Sections 91, 154, 161, 161(3), 162, 162(1), 164, 170, 172(2), 173, 173(5), 173(6), 207, 243, 313, 313(4); Constitution of India - Articles 19, 21, 226 |
| Citation | AIR 2013 SC 613, 2013 (1) AJR 683, 2013 CriLJ 177, JT 2012 (9) SC 609, 2013 (3) KarLJ 83, 2012 (4) KLJ 570, 2012 MLJ 355 (Crl), 2013 (1) RCR 244 (Crl), 2012 (9) SCALE 488, 2012 (9) SCC 771 |
| Judgement Date | September 27, 2012 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
1. Leave granted.
2. Two orders of the High Court of Karnataka dated 16th April, 2012 and 28th May, 2012 upholding the rejection of two separate applications made by the Appellant herein for certified copies or in the alternative for inspection of certain unmarked and unexhibited documents in a trial pending against her is the subject matter of challenge in the appeals under consideration. The facts leading to the applications filed before the learned trial court and the grounds of rejection being largely similar both the appeals were heard analogously.
3. A convenient staring point for the required narration of the relevant facts could be the order of this court dated 18th November, 2003 passed in Transfer Petitions (Criminal) Nos.77-78 of 2003 (K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police and others (2004) 3 SCC 767). By the aforesaid order dated 18th November, 2003 this court had transferred the proceeding in CC No. 7 of 1997 from the court of the 11th Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No. 1), Chennai to a Special Court in Bangalore to be constituted by the State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka. The Appellant before us is the second accused in the aforesaid transferred proceeding which has been registered as Spl. CC.No.208 of 2004 and is presently pending in the court of the 36th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore. It may also be noticed that along with CC No. 7 of 1997 there was another proceeding i.e. CC No. 2 of 2001 pending in the file of the same court, i.e. 11th Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No. 1), Chennai against the same accused which was also transferred to the Special Court in Bangalore by the order dated 18th November, 2003. However, the said proceeding would not be of any relevance at the present stage as the chargesheet in the said case has since been withdrawn and the matter stands closed.
4. The transfer of CC No. 7 of 1997 and CC No. 2 of 2001 from the court at Chennai was sought by one Shri K. Anbazhagan, General Secretary of DMK Party, a recognised political party in the State of Tamil Nadu. In case No. CC No. 7 of 1997 then pending in the competent court at Chennai allegations of commission of offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were made against the present Appellant who was arrayed as the second accused in the case and also against one Smt. J. Jayalalitha, who was arrayed as the first accused. There were two other accused in the aforesaid proceeding, namely, accused No. 3 and 4, who are relatives of the present Appellant, i.e., accused No. 2. The offences alleged arose out of certain acts and omissions attributed to the accused during the period 1991-1996 when the first accused was the Chief Minister of the State which office she had demitted after the General Elections held in the State in 1996. According to the Petitioner in the Transfer Petitions, chargesheet in the aforesaid case had been filed on 21st October, 1997 and more than 250 prosecution witnesses had been examined by the end of August, 2000. The accused No. 1, once again, became the Chief Minister of the State following the General Elections held in May, 2001. Though the appointment of the first accused as the Chief Minister was nullified by this court and the accused ceased to be Chief Minister, w.e.f., 21st September, 2001, she was elected to the State assembly in a by-election held on 21st February, 2002 and was, once again, sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State on 2nd March, 2002. It was stated in the Transfer Petitions that, thereafter, the course of trial of CC.No.7 of 1997 took a peculiar turn and a large number of prosecution witnesses (76 in all) who had been discharged were recalled without any objection of the public prosecutor. 64 of such witnesses resiled from their earlier versions tendered in court. It was also alleged that none of these witnesses were declared hostile by the public prosecutor. Furthermore, according to the Petitioner, the presence of the first accused in court for her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and, instead, a questionnaire was sent to the first accused to which she had responded. It is in these circumstances that the Transfer Petitions were filed before this Court.
5. Transfer Petitions Nos.77-78 of 2003 were allowed by the order of this court dated 18th November, 2003 with certain directions. To recapitulate the said directions, Paragraph 34 of the judgment of this court may be extracted:
34. In the result, we deem it expedient for the ends of justice to allow these petitions. The only point that remains to be considered now is to which State the cases should be transferred. We are of the view that for the convenience of the parties the State of Karnataka would be most convenient due to its nearness to Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. CC No. 7 of 1997 and CC No. 2 of 2001 pending on the file of the XIth Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No. 1), Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu shall stand transferred with the following directions:
(a) The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka shall constitute a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to whom CC No. 7 of 1997 and CC No. 2 of 2001 pending on the file of the XIth Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No. 1), Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu shall stand transferred. The Special Court to have its sitting in Bangalore.
(b) As the matter is pending since 1997the State of Karnataka shall appoint a Special Judge within a month from the date of receipt of this order and the trial before the Special Judge shall commence as soon as possible and will then proceed from day to day till completion.
(c) The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka shall appoint a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as Public Prosecutor to conduct these cases. The Public Prosecutor so appointed shall be entitled to assistance of another lawyer of his choice. The fees and all other expenses of the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant shall be paid by the State of Karnataka who will thereafter be entitled to get the same reimbursed from the State of Tamil Nadu. The Public Prosecutor to be appointed within six weeks from today.
(d) The investigating agency is directed to render all assistance to the Public Prosecutor and his Assistant.
(e) The Special Judge so appointed to proceed with the cases from such stage as he deems fit and proper and in accordance with law.
(f) The Public Prosecutor will be at liberty to apply that the witnesses who have been recalled and cross-examined by the accused and who have resiled from their previous statement, may be again recalled. The Public Prosecutor would be at liberty to apply to the court to have these witnesses declared hostile and to seek permission to cross-examine them. Any such application if made to the Special Court shall be allowed. The Public Prosecutor will also be at liberty to apply that action in perjury to be taken against some or all such witnesses. Any such application(s) will be undoubtedly considered on its merit(s).
(g) The State of Tamil Nadu shall ensure that all documents and records are forthwith transferred to the Special Court on its constitution. The State of Tamil Nadu shall also ensure that the witnesses are produced before the Special Court whenever they are required to attend that court.
(h) In case any witness asks for protection, the State of Karnataka shall provide protection to that witness.
(i) The Special Judge shall after completion of evidence put to all the accused all relevant evidence and documents appearing against them whilst recording their statement under Section 313. All the accused shall personally appear in court, on the day they are called upon to do so, for answering questions under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
These petitions are allowed in the above terms.
6. Though a detailed recital will not be necessary it appears that notwithstanding the above directions of this court not much progress has been achieved to bring to trial in Special CC No. 208 of 2004 to its logical conclusion. Soon after the proceedings were transferred to the Special Court at Bangalore an order dated 27th June, 2005 was passed by the learned trial court for clubbing of the two cases. This order came to be challenged before this court by the Petitioner in the Transfer Petitions, i.e. Shri K. Anbazihagan and until the Special Leave Petition filed (SLP No. 3828/2005) was disposed of on 22nd January, 2010 the criminal proceedings had remained stayed. It also appears that from time to time applications had been filed before the learned trial court by one or the accused raising different interlocutory issues and also seeking to vindicate different facets of the right of the accused to a free and fair trial. Such applications, inter alia, were for translation of depositions of prosecution witnesses running into thousands of pages; for corrections in such translations; for appointment or assistance of an interpreter and such are the incidental matters. The orders passed by the trial court on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.P.(CRL)--1319/2019. Case: SARLA GUPTA & ANR Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. High Court of Delhi (India)
...207 and 208 Cr.P.C. In support of submissions reliance is placed upon Manu Sharma vs. State (2010) 6 and V.K. Sasikala vs. State 2012 (9) SCC 771. W.P.(CRL.) 1319/2019 & 1164/2019 In the submissions on behalf of the respondent-Directorate Enforcement, the ld. Special Judge has primarily......
-
W.P.(CRL)--1164/2019. Case: VIJAY PAL TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
...207 and 208 Cr.P.C. In support of submissions reliance is placed upon Manu Sharma vs. State (2010) 6 and V.K. Sasikala vs. State 2012 (9) SCC 771. W.P.(CRL.) 1319/2019 & 1164/2019 In the submissions on behalf of the respondent-Directorate Enforcement, the ld. Special Judge has primarily......
-
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 13586/2015. Case: Devki Nandan Dubey and Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...has invited attention of the Court to judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Sasikala Vs. Superintendent of Police, AIR 2013 SC 613 wherein, it has been held that the documents submitted in the Court along with charge sheet though un-exhibited or unmarked, ought to be disc......
-
Crl.Pet. 239/2016. Gauhati High Court
...to the petitioner the learned counsel has relied upon the decision in BK Sashikala v. State represented by the Superintendent of Police, 2012 (9) SCC 771, wherein it is held that “ the right of the accused to ask for all documents that he may be entitled is one of facets of just and fair an......
-
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 13586/2015. Case: Devki Nandan Dubey and Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...has invited attention of the Court to judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Sasikala Vs. Superintendent of Police, AIR 2013 SC 613 wherein, it has been held that the documents submitted in the Court along with charge sheet though un-exhibited or unmarked, ought to be disc......
-
W.P.(CRL)--1319/2019. Case: SARLA GUPTA & ANR Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. High Court of Delhi (India)
...207 and 208 Cr.P.C. In support of submissions reliance is placed upon Manu Sharma vs. State (2010) 6 and V.K. Sasikala vs. State 2012 (9) SCC 771. W.P.(CRL.) 1319/2019 & 1164/2019 In the submissions on behalf of the respondent-Directorate Enforcement, the ld. Special Judge has primarily......
-
W.P.(CRL)--1164/2019. Case: VIJAY PAL TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
...207 and 208 Cr.P.C. In support of submissions reliance is placed upon Manu Sharma vs. State (2010) 6 and V.K. Sasikala vs. State 2012 (9) SCC 771. W.P.(CRL.) 1319/2019 & 1164/2019 In the submissions on behalf of the respondent-Directorate Enforcement, the ld. Special Judge has primarily......
-
Crl.Pet. 239/2016. Gauhati High Court
...to the petitioner the learned counsel has relied upon the decision in BK Sashikala v. State represented by the Superintendent of Police, 2012 (9) SCC 771, wherein it is held that “ the right of the accused to ask for all documents that he may be entitled is one of facets of just and fair an......