Shakuntala Devi Vs. State

Shakuntala Devi vs State

Disposition Revision petition allowed Court Jammu and Kashmir Decided Jul 30, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/901111

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/901111
Court: Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Judge: Y.P. Nargotra, J.
Decided On: Jul 30, 2003
Case Number: CR. REV. 41/2003
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision petition allowed
Acts & sections: Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shakuntala Devi

Advocate K.S. Pathania, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Aruna Thakur, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Cases Referred: State v. Rajesh Kumar and Anr. In
Reported In: 2003(3)JKJ601

Excerpt

- .....date also. faced with this situation learned trial court directed the accused to pay an amount of rs. 500/- as expenses to the witness, shakuntla devi on the next date of hearing. it was further directed in the said order by the learned trial court that unless the expenses are paid, statements of the prosecution witnesses shall not be recorded. accused-petitioners have challenged the legality of the said order in the present revision petition on the ground that they are very poor so cannot afford to pay rs. 500/- and even otherwise, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is without jurisdiction.2. i have considered the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also heard l.c. for the respondents.3. there is no provision in law under which an accused can be made to pay the expenses of the witnesses of the prosecution. in the given situation if the accused were not being represented by any counsel, the course open to the court could be to proceed with recording of the evidence of the witnesses and afford opportunity of cross-examination to the accused, and if the accused were disabled in conducting the cross-examination, then services of some lawyer as amicus-curia could be provided. be that as it may, the course chosen by the court below cannot be accepted to be as legal mode of compelling the accused to bring their lawyer for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.4. the revision petition is therefore, allowed, the order impugned passed by the learned trial court is set aside and learned counsel for the accused is directed to produce the accused before the trial court on 18.8.2003, or on the date fixed by the trial court in the case. the expenses of the witnesses thus may be paid by the court below from diet expenses kept at its disposal.

Full Judgment

Y.P. Nargotra, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against an order dated 24.4.2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Jammu in case titled State v. Rajesh Kumar and Anr. In the above titled session case a witness, namely Shakuntla Devi was produced by the prosecution. Her statement could not be recorded because counsel for the accused was not present and same was the position on the previous date also. Faced with this situation learned trial court directed the accused to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- as expenses to the witness, Shakuntla Devi on the next date of hearing. It was further directed in the said order by the learned trial court that unless the expenses are paid, statements of the prosecution witnesses shall not be recorded. Accused-petitioners have challenged the legality of the said order in the present revision petition on the ground that they are very poor so cannot afford to pay Rs. 500/- and even otherwise, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is without jurisdiction.

2. I have considered the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also heard L.C. for the respondents.

3. There is no provision in law under which an accused can be made to pay the expenses of the witnesses of the prosecution. In the given situation if the accused were not being represented by any counsel, the course open to the court could be to proceed with recording of the evidence of the witnesses and afford opportunity of cross-examination to the accused, and if the accused were disabled in conducting the cross-examination, then services of some lawyer as Amicus-curia could be provided. Be that as it may, the course chosen by the court below cannot be accepted to be as legal mode of compelling the accused to bring their lawyer for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

4. The revision Petition is therefore, allowed, the order impugned passed by the learned trial court is set aside and learned counsel for the accused is directed to produce the accused before the trial court on 18.8.2003, or on the date fixed by the trial court in the case. The expenses of the witnesses thus may be paid by the court below from diet expenses kept at its disposal.

Same Court & Year Jammu and Kashmir · 2003 Same Parties Shakuntala Devi vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Y.P. Nargotra, J. Acts & Sections Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Criminal