The Madras High Court has recently observed that the trial courts were not following the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2014-2016  regarding witness examination by trial courts. The court expressed concern that certain trial judges were deviating from the established guidelines and, instead, postponing cases based on requests from defense counsels aiming to enhance their reputation within the legal profession.

Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup presided over a case involving a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to overturn an order issued by the Sessions Judge at the Fast Track Mahila Court in Sivagangai. The Sessions Judge had previously rejected the petitioners' request to summon additional witnesses.

In dismissing the petitions, the Sessions Judge observed that the application to recall witnesses lacked merit and was seemingly driven by a malicious intent on the part of the petitioners (accused) to influence the case in favor of the accused.

Furthermore, the High Court criticized the counsel representing the accused, emphasizing that, as a member of the bar, the lawyer bore a responsibility to the court in the pursuit of justice. The court highlighted that by repeatedly seeking adjournments to recall witnesses, the lawyer had neglected this duty and, in doing so, contributed to facilitating the accused in evading the legal proceedings.

“Also, the learned counsel, who appeared for the accused, as a member of the Bar, has a duty towards the Court in rendering justice in assisting the Court as a Court Officer. They ignore their responsibility and professional ethics and etiquette and they are ready to help the accused to wriggle out of the case by seeking adjournments to recall the witnesses, which amounts to harass the victims of the crime, who are invariably the witnesses before the trial Courts,” the court said.

Consequently, the court observed that the petitioner's request could not be granted, aligning with the guidelines and rules established by the Supreme Court, which explicitly discouraged the practice of recalling witnesses. In accordance with this stance and in support of the trial court's decision, the petition was ultimately dismissed.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.R.Karunanithi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Veeranthiran Government Advocate

Case Title: Selvam @ Selvakumar and others v The Inspector of Police

Case No: CRL.O.P (MD) No.23412 of 2023