Ramaswami Gounder and Murugan vs State

Sengottuvelan, J.—This is an application u/s 482, Crl.P.C., to direct the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore to give proper opportunity to the Petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution.

This is a case u/s 302, I.P.C. in which the prosecution has cited as many as 84 witnesses. The grievance of the Petitioners is that though copies of the statements of the witnesses made to the police have been given to the accused, yet it is not possible for the Petitioners to ascertain which witness is going to be examined on a particular day and that since certain amount of preparation is necessary for the cross-examination of each witness, the Petitioner''s Advocate ought to be informed of the names of the witnesses whom the prosecution proposes to examine early. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon the decision of a bench of Calcutta High Court in Sadasiv Singh Vs. Emperor, wherein the bench held that at a Sessions trial, where the defence counsel applied, after the examination-in-chief of the first prosecution witness, for postponement of the cross-examination of the witnesses till the next day, on the ground of his unpreparedness, the application was a reasonable one which the Judge should under the circumstances, have allowed in order to enable the defence counsel to efficiently cross-examine the witness. But in this case or it cannot be said to lay down any procedure regarding sessions trial. That case only relates to the norms to be adopted in the matter of conduct of sessions trials properly.

So far as the procedure is concerned, it is laid down u/s 207, Code of Criminal Procedure It provides for the supply to the accused, copies of police report and other documents which in-elude statements of witnesses and under of Criminal Rules of Practice which also provides for the supply of statements of witnesses to the accused and for binding over of the witnesses. The said section and the rule only make it obligatory on the Court of Session to supply statements of witnesses to the accused and to; bind over the witnesses. But there is no other provision by which the accused can demand information with reference to the question as to the witnesses to be examined on each day of the trial. This is also not practically possible because it is not possible for any one to say how long the examination of every witness will take. Under the circumstances, the request of the Petitioners is not based upon any provision of law and the same will have to negatived, But at the same time, it will have to be borne in mind that expediency calls for a fair opportunity afforded to the accused for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. As rightly pointed out by Woodroffe and Ameer Ali, in their Commentary on Criminal Evidence (1965 Edition), page 806, Section 137, the opportunity of cross-examination involves two elements: (1) notice to the opponent that the deposition is to be taken at the time and place specified; and (2) a sufficient interval of time to prepare for examination and to reach the place. This could only be taken to mean that the accused must be apprised of the witnesses and the dates of the trial during which this witness will have to be examined. Of course, in a case of this nature where there are a number of witnesses, if certain materials are to be gathered by the accused without which cross-examination could not be done and that deserves granting of some time, it is for the Sessions Court exercising its discretion to comply with the request made by the counsel for the accused. Apart from this, it is not possible to lay down any procedure as requested by the Petitioners. With this observation this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.