Law Adda 2023

While dismissing an application of a complainant who sought to reopen the Section 244 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) stage through a new counsel nearly four years after charges were framed, the Allahabad High Court has held that allowing the complainant to introduce new witnesses at the Section 246 stage when they were never subjected to examination-in-chief under Section 244 would heavily prejudice the statutory rights of the accused. The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 agaisnt the order passed by the Sessions Judge dismissing the applicant’s criminal revision against rejection of application under Section 311 of the CrPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay held, “Allowing the Complainant to introduce new witnesses at the Section 246 stage when they were never subjected to examination-in-chief under Section 244 would heavily prejudice the statutory rights of the accused and fundamentally disrupt the trial process.”

Factual Background The Applicant filed a complaint against the Opposite Parties under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging criminal breach of trust, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation. The statement of the Complainant Dilawar Singh was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Subsequently the statements of witness Shivkumar and witness Ghanshyam were duly recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case, the Trial Magistrate summoned the opposite parties to face trial. The Complainant’s primary statement under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. was recorded but due to the global COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdowns, the examination of further witnesses could not take place.

The Kerala High Court has held that recovery of contraband from a plastic bag carried by an accused would not amount to a “personal search” attracting mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court observed that where recovery is made from a source other than the body of the accused, non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not vitiate the prosecution case. The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by a woman convicted under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act for possession of 25.400 grams of brown sugar allegedly recovered from plastic packets carried by her in a bag. A Bency of Justice A. Badharudeen, while referring to the Apex Court’s ruling in Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2023), observed: “Any recovery made from source other than the body would not warrant compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and non-compliance necessarily is of no significance in such cases.”

Further, while referring to State of Punjab v. Baldev (1999), the Bench observed: “The provisions of Section 50 will come into play only in the case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage like a bag, article or container, etc. which he may be carrying.”