The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition challenging a trial Court order dismissing an objection petition regarding alleged leading questions by the prosecutor. The Court held that entertaining such petitions during trial is contrary to law as no provision exists for it, cautioning against tactics to dilute trials.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:MHC:3989
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 against Criminal M.P. No. 639 of 2023 in Spl. S.C. No. 14 of 2022 (CC No. 01/2015) (CNR No.TNCH06-000639-2023)
Thameem Ansari, S/o.Abdul Rahman
... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. By the Superintendent of Police Chief Investigation Officer NIA, Hyderabad. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 16.05.2023 in Criminal M.P. No. 639/2023 in Special S.C. No.14 of 2022 (CC. No. 01/2015) (CNR No.TNCH06-000639-2023), on the file of the Special Court under the NIA Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai at Poonamallee and direct the Special Court to eschew and delete the evidence illegally recorded on 20.06.2023 through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
PW45 (L.W.52) Mr.Natarajan.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vijayakumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Special PP (NIA)
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]
Under assail is the order dated 16 th May 2023 passed in Criminal M.P. No. 639/2023 in Special S.C. No.14 of 2022 (CC. No. 01/2015).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
behalf of the accused before the Trial Court. The objection was reduced in writing by way of memo/objection petition and the said objection petition was entertained and the trial Court permitted the prosecution side to file counter-statement on the objection petition and the impugned order dismissing the objection petition was passed, which resulted in filing of the present criminal original petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
was filed before the Special Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
question asked about month and year of the alleged occurrence is not amounts to leading question. The trial Court perused the evidence of PW45 and formed an opinion that there is no leading question asked on behalf of the prosecution.
leading questions.
10. We have considered the arguments made on behalf of the respective parties to the lis on hand.
11. Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act denotes leading questions, accordingly, “any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question”. Section 142 states that when they must not be asked. Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a reexamination, except with the permission of the Court. Pertinently, the Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
Section 143 stipulates that leading questions may be asked in crossexamination. Section 165 confers Judge’s power to put questions or order production. The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question.
12. In the context of the above provisions, if at all any leading questions are asked by the Public Prosecutor during the course of trial, it may provide an opportunity to the accused to raise a ground during the course of final arguments. Intervention of the trial by raising such objections in writing on such alleged leading questions are not desirable as it would undoubtedly hamper the trial and on some occasions may cause prejudice to the interest of either of the parties.
13. Importantly, Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide
power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Accordingly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
14. Ultimate object of the justice delivery system is to meet the ends of justice. Truth cannot be buried and it must be culled out by affording opportunity to all the parties to the lis before the Courts. While the Court is in the process of understanding the case and culling out the truth relating to an occurrence, the Courts are empowered to ask any question summon and examine any person in the interest of justice. The amplitude of Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure would be sufficient to form an opinion that the power conferred on the trial Court to summon material witnesses or examine persons are intended for fair trial to meet the ends of justice.
15. In the context of the present case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that month and year of alleged occurrence was put as a question before PW45. However, no such details are stated by PW45 in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
statement recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court filed an objection petition stating that it is a leading question. The Court found that asking month and year of the alleged occurrence is not amounts to leading question. Further, the trial Court found that evidence of PW45 goes to show that no leading question was asked by the prosecution.
16. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the Trial Court considered the nature of question asked and made a finding that the said question was not a leading question. The accused frequently raises such objections during the trial, causing obstruction to speedy trial. Thus, the present petition is to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
petitioner are neither candid nor convincing.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 13
20.
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
22. In the present case, admittedly, 57 witnesses have already been examined and the trial is in progress. As far as the present facts are concerned, we do not find any infirmity with reference to the findings made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
23. The trial Court is requested to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 20.11.2024
Maya
Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 13
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 in CRL.A.SR.No.54749 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Maya
CRL.O.P.No.21717 of 2023 against Criminal M.P. No. 639 of 2023 in Spl. S.C. No. 14 of 2022 (CC No. 01/2015)
Dated : 20.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 13 of 13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether objection petitions against alleged leading questions during witness examination are maintainable during the pendency of a trial.
Whether entertainment of such petitions obstructs the free flow of trial and increases litigation longevity.
Whether the impugned order dismissing an objection petition regarding leading questions warrants interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Thameem Ansari
State Rep. By the Superintendent of Police Chief Investigation Officer NIA, Hyderabad
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
M.JOTHIRAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
