Recenty, the Supreme Court of India set aside the orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on issuance of summons to prosecution witnesses in trial.

Last year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court adopted the orders issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the natter of Rambahor Saket and others vs State of M.P.(2018) and reiterated those guidelines as follows-

After the formal framing of charges against the accused, summonses should be issued to the eyewitnesses or those witnesses crucial for establishing the prosecution's case. In cases where summonses are returned unserved due to various reasons, it is recommended that, rather than repetitively following the same procedure, the subsequent summonses be delivered through the Superintendent of Police's office.

If the police's report indicates that the witnesses are unreachable or untraceable, and their availability for service cannot be ensured within a reasonable timeframe, the trial court should omit those witnesses and proceed with the next group by issuing summonses accordingly. It's important to note that by postponing the examination of a particular set of witnesses, the court is not closing off their testimony but rather putting it on hold, to be recorded once the police locate them.

If there's a delay in securing the presence of significant witnesses, the court should explore the possibility of examining formal and expert witnesses, if applicable, and conclude that part of the proceedings. Subsequently, for the remaining prosecution witnesses who couldn't be examined due to the police's inability to produce them, as mentioned in the police report, the court should conclude the prosecution's case and move on to the subsequent phase of the trial.

The police cannot use reasons related to law and order responsibilities or any other functions to justify non-compliance with the Trial Court's order to ensure the presence of their witnesses. Such non-compliance could potentially be seen as contempt of the Trial Court's directives.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its matter held that these guidelines should apply to all courts within the territories of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.

On August 8, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar set aside these directions.

"A rigid rule like this cannot be made through a judicial fiat", the bench orally remarked.

Case Brief -

While granting bail to the accused in the muurder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued these guidlines.

While hearing the case, the High Court noted that the Trial Court had issued proclamation under Section 82 CrPC against two prosecution witnesses for failing to appear. Taking a critical view of this approach, the High Court sought an explanation from the Trial Court.

"It is surprising that the trial Court has adopted a procedure under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against a witness, though the procedure under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is meant for the appearance of an accused person", the HC observed.

“The perusal of Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. clearly shows that a witness cannot be declared a proclaimed offender, if he fails to appear despite service of non-bailable warrants, rather the procedure to be adopted by the Court is provided under Section 350 Cr.P.C."