The digital age has revolutionized the way documents are created, shared, and stored. However, it has also introduced new avenues for fraud, particularly through digital manipulation of documents. The recent Malaysian High Court decision in COSCO Shipping Heavy Industry (Dalian) Co Ltd & Anor v Osta Fleet Sdn Bhd offers a compelling case study on how courts can address and analyze digitally forged documents.
Print PageA plain reading of Sec. 311 does not place any restrictions on the power of the Court to issue summons to a witness if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the evidence of those witnesses is essential to the just decision of the case. After the complainant compounded the offences with Subbarayan and Kannan the latter two persons were acquitted as a result of the compounding and no longer figure as co-accused in the case to be tried along with the revision petitioner. It can no doubt be said that having figured as co-accused at an earlier point of time, the evidence which those witnesses are likely to give is in the nature of an accomplice evidence but then the court will naturally be on its guard in not acting on such evidence unless their evidence is corroborated in material particulars. The absence of evidence corroborating the evidence of these two persons in material particulars cannot impinge in any manner on the power of the court to summon them as witnesses. Sec. 311, therefore, gives ample power to the court to summon witnesses who are no longer accused before him if the Magistrate felt that their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. {Para 2}
3. A few cases which have been relied upon can now be noticed. In Banu Singh v. Emperor I.L.R. 33 Cal. 1353 a Division Bench expressed itself:
"The law, however, is well settled, and there can be no controversy on the point that an accomplice, if he is not an accused under trial in the same case is a competent witness and may, as any other witness, be examined on oath.........On such a discharge or acquittal he becomes a competent witness against other persons accused of the same offence. The disability to be examined as a witness on oath against the persons who are brought before the court on the same indictment, may thus cease on the withdrawal of the indictment, against him".
The Supreme Court in Jamatraj v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0063/1967 : A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 178, while considering the sweep of Sec. 540. Cr.P.C. (Repealed Code) expressed itself:
"Statutory law confers a power in absolute terms to be exercised at any stage of the trial to summon a witness provided the just decision of the case demands it............If the Court has acted without the requirements of a just decision, the action is open to criticism but if the Court's action is supportable as being in aid of a just decision, the action cannot be regarded as exceeding the jurisdiction."
The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision referred to Dora Harrig's case 1927-2KB 587. In that case five persons were tried, two for stealing and they pleaded guilty and three others for receiving who pleaded not guilty. The first two remained in the dock and the trial proceeded against the other three. They gave evidence on their own behalf and the prosecution case was not quite strong. The Recorder then asked one of the other two accused to give evidence and allowed the prisoner Dora, against whom the evidence went, to cross-examine him but Dora was not asked to enter the Box again to contradict the new evidence. This was held by the Court of Criminal Appeal to be a wrong exercise of the power of the Court. It was an extreme example of the exercise of the power.
4. The observations made in the aforesaid decisions go to indicate that once the court's action is supportable as being in aid of a just decision, no exception can be taken if the Magistrate ordered issue of summons to persons who were no longer before him as accused to be tried in the case against the revision petitioner alone. The learned Magistrate has expressed himself that the witnesses appear to be just witnesses and the petition is worth allowing to meet the ends of justice. These expressions can, in the context, be only construed to mean that the Magistrate felt that the examination of these witnesses is essential to the just decision of the case. This objection raised by the revision petitioner is accordingly rejected.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Crl. R.C. No. 803/82
Decided On: 17.12.1983
N. Chennimaliay Vs. The Andhra Pradesh Marketing Corporation
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Ramachandra Raju, J.
1984 MLJ CRI 1 4651984 ALT 1 3151984 APLJ HC 1 2371983 SCC ONLINE AP 1971984 AP LJ 1 2371984 CRI LJ NOC 139 531984 MLJ CRL 1 4651984 APLJ 1 237, MANU/AP/0245/1983
Print PageAdmittedly, the quantity involved is
'intermediate' as per the relevant notifications. {Para8}
9. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were ordered to be
released on bail as per order dated 18.07.2022 in B.A.
No.5043/2022 by this Court.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. It is
submitted that he is accused in Crime Nos.21/2022,
347/2015 and 177/2019.
11. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case mentioned above, the
petitioner can be ordered to be released on bail on
stringent conditions.
In the result, this Bail Application is allowed as
follows:
(a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on
his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(b) He shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on Mondays and Saturdays between
10 A.M. and 11 A.M. till the final report is
filed.
(c) He shall not attempt to interfere with the
investigation or influence any witnesses.
(d) He shall surrender his Indian Passport
before the Jurisdictional Court. If he does
|not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit
to that effect, within a period of one
week from the date of his release.
(e) He shall not involve in any other cases of
like nature while on bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BAIL APPL. NO. 5531 OF 2022
AKHIL JOHN Vs STATE OF KERALA
PRESENT
MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2022
Print Page
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 1.9 Kg (1900 gm) of contraband(Ganja) was seized from the possession of the applicant. Hence, the offence has been registered. {Para 3}
6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering that there is no criminal past of the applicant and further considering that intermediate quantity of Ganja has been seized from the possession of the applicant, and lastly considering his pre-trial detention, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3553 of 2023
Rahul Kumar Vijay Ram, Vs State Of Chhattisgarh
