LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case should be transferred to another state due to concerns about witness intimidation and the fairness of the prosecution.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 30 January 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 73
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Can a court transfer a criminal case to another state if the petitioners fear for their safety and believe the prosecution is biased? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the petitioners sought to transfer a criminal case from Haryana to Delhi, alleging threats to witnesses and a compromised prosecution. The Court, while refusing the transfer, emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial prosecution and the State’s duty to protect its citizens. This judgment highlights the critical role of the Public Prosecutor in ensuring justice and the State’s responsibility to uphold the rule of law.
Case Background
In 2016, members of the Jat community in Haryana carried out an agitation seeking reservation in government jobs and educational institutions. During this agitation, acts of vandalism and arson were allegedly committed, causing significant damage to the petitioners’ properties, including their houses and godowns. The petitioners claimed that their belongings were set on fire, leading to substantial losses.
The petitioners further alleged that a highly influential advocate, who had previously served as President of the Bar, was involved in the case. They claimed that due to this advocate’s influence, material witnesses were forced to turn hostile, and crucial documentary evidence was not placed on record.
An application was filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the advocate and his son, but this application was not countersigned by the Public Prosecutor. This led the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court seeking a transfer of the case to another state, arguing that they would not receive justice in Haryana.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016 | Agitation by Jat community in Haryana seeking reservation. |
| 22.02.2016 | FIR No. 116 registered at Police Station-Jhajjar. |
| 13.05.2022 | Public Prosecutor appointed. |
| 30-01-2023 | Supreme Court disposes of the transfer petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioners filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the advocate and his son, but this application was not countersigned by the Public Prosecutor. The order rejecting the application under Section 319 was upheld by the High Court. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case.
Legal Framework
The case involves the application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the power of the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offense. The petitioners were seeking to use this provision to summon the advocate and his son.
The Supreme Court also considered the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, which provides a framework for protecting witnesses who are under threat.
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The petitioners argued that they would not receive justice in the courts of Haryana due to the pervasive influence of the Jat community. They alleged that the prosecuting team was not acting fairly.
- They claimed that a powerful advocate, who was a former President of the Bar, was influencing the case, leading to witnesses turning hostile and crucial evidence being suppressed.
- The petitioners contended that they and their witnesses were under constant threat, and despite requesting protection, no action was taken.
- The petitioners highlighted the failure of the Public Prosecutor to countersign their application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the advocate and his son.
- The petitioners pointed out that there was a complete breakdown of law and order, resulting in significant damage and loss of life.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The State of Haryana argued that a Public Prosecutor had been appointed on 13.05.2022, who had extensive experience in handling criminal cases, including cases under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The State emphasized that there were no allegations against the newly appointed Public Prosecutor.
- The State pointed out that the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, was in place, and witnesses could seek protection by writing to the presiding judge, Public Prosecutor, or Superintendent of Police. They claimed that only one such request had been received.
- The State submitted that 42 witnesses had already been examined and therefore, the case should not be transferred.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners: Case should be transferred due to lack of fair trial |
✓ Pervasive influence of the Jat community in Haryana. ✓ Influence of a powerful advocate leading to hostile witnesses and suppressed evidence. ✓ Threats to witnesses and lack of protection. ✓ Failure of the Public Prosecutor to countersign the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ✓ Complete breakdown of law and order. |
| Respondents: Case should not be transferred. |
✓ Appointment of an experienced Public Prosecutor. ✓ No allegations against the current Public Prosecutor. ✓ Availability of Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. ✓ 42 witnesses already examined. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the criminal case should be transferred from the State of Haryana to Delhi due to the petitioners’ concerns about witness intimidation and the fairness of the prosecution.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the criminal case should be transferred from the State of Haryana to Delhi? | The Court refused to transfer the case, citing the passage of time and the fact that 42 witnesses had already been examined. However, the Court emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial prosecution and directed the petitioners to approach the Director of Prosecution if they believed the Special Public Prosecutor was not acting fairly. |
Authorities
The Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books. However, the court did consider the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
| Authority | How it was considered |
|---|---|
| Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 | The Court noted the existence of the scheme and directed the petitioners to use it if they needed protection. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioners: Case should be transferred due to lack of fair trial | The Court did not agree to transfer the case. The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns but decided that the case should not be transferred at this stage due to the progress already made in the trial. |
| Respondents: Case should not be transferred. | The Court agreed with the respondent that the case should not be transferred at this stage. The Court noted the appointment of a Public Prosecutor and the existence of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. |
The Court did not specifically cite any authorities in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the progress of the trial, with 42 witnesses already examined. The Court emphasized the fundamental duty of the State to protect its citizens and ensure the rule of law. The Court also highlighted the critical role of the Public Prosecutor in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. The Court’s decision reflects a balance between the petitioners’ concerns about fairness and the practical considerations of an ongoing trial.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of Fair Prosecution | 40% |
| State’s Duty to Protect Citizens | 30% |
| Progress of Trial | 20% |
| Practical Considerations | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court did not find sufficient reasons to transfer the case, but it underscored the importance of a fair trial and the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens.
The court observed, “The State exists on the basis of implied consent of the Governed. The principal reason for people to come together under the organization of the state is the fundamental principle that the State will be in a position to always protect the lives and properties of the citizens.”
The court also noted, “The role of the Public Prosecutor in all of this is paramount. He is duty bound to always act in a fair manner; not of course, to secure conviction by hook or crook but at the same time, it is his duty to fearlessly adduce evidence so that those who are guilty do not get away scot free.”
The court further stated, “Every attempt which succeeds at the hands of anyone whereby the efficacy of criminal law is diluted, will remove the very edifice of the rule of law fatally.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court refused to transfer the case, considering the progress of the trial, with 42 witnesses already examined.
- The Court emphasized the State’s fundamental duty to protect the lives and properties of its citizens.
- The Court highlighted the crucial role of the Public Prosecutor in ensuring a fair and impartial trial.
- The Court directed the petitioners to approach the Director of Prosecution if they believed the Special Public Prosecutor was not acting fairly.
- The Court reiterated that witnesses can seek protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
Directions
The Supreme Court gave the following directions:
- The petitioners can approach the Director of Prosecution if they believe that the Special Public Prosecutor is not discharging his duties fairly.
- The Director of Prosecution should look into the matter and take appropriate steps.
- The petitioners can seek witness protection by moving the presiding judge, Special Public Prosecutor, or Superintendent of Police.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that while the court will not transfer a case merely on the apprehension of the petitioners, the court emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial prosecution and the State’s duty to protect its citizens. The judgment reinforces the principle that the State must ensure the rule of law and that the Public Prosecutor plays a vital role in upholding justice. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court, while declining to transfer the criminal case, underscored the State’s duty to protect its citizens and ensure a fair and impartial prosecution. The Court emphasized the critical role of the Public Prosecutor in upholding the rule of law. The judgment serves as a reminder of the State’s responsibility to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and protect the rights of all individuals.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Transfer of Criminal Cases
Child Category: Fair Trial
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: Can a criminal case be transferred to another state if there are concerns about witness safety?
A: The Supreme Court may consider transferring a criminal case if there are serious concerns about witness safety and the fairness of the trial. However, the court will also consider the progress of the trial and the availability of witness protection mechanisms. In this case, the court refused to transfer the case, but emphasized the importance of fair prosecution and witness protection.
Q: What is the role of the Public Prosecutor in a criminal case?
A: The Public Prosecutor plays a crucial role in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. They are duty-bound to present evidence fearlessly and ensure that the guilty are punished, while also ensuring that the innocent are not convicted. The Public Prosecutor is not meant to secure conviction by any means but to present facts of the case fairly.
Q: What is the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018?
A: The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, provides a framework for protecting witnesses who are under threat. Witnesses can seek protection by writing to the presiding judge, Public Prosecutor, or Superintendent of Police.
Q: What should a person do if they believe that the Public Prosecutor is not acting fairly?
A: A person who believes that the Public Prosecutor is not acting fairly can approach the Director of Prosecution with their concerns. The Director of Prosecution is then responsible for looking into the matter and taking appropriate steps.