TUNCAY ALANKUS Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.A. 4005/2005: Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of. Crl. Rev. P. 126/2005 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 2192, 4005/2005:

(2.) This revision petition seeks to challenge orders of the Special Judge dated 11 th October, 2004, whereby the learned Judge has restricted the witness of the defence. It also challenges order dated 17th November, 2004 whereby the learned Judge has while allowing witnesses to be examined by video conference directed the costs thereof to be borne by the accused. It further goes on to challenge the order dated 6th December, 2004 whereby the rime schedule was indicated, failing which the defence evidence will be closed.

(3.) It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 11th December, 2004 is working hardship, inasmuch as the case of the defence is being closed without giving him sufficient opportunity to lead essential and proper evidence in his defence. He submits to curtail the evidence which is otherwise essential to prove his defence is extremely unjust. Out of 63 witnesses initially sought to be examined he has shown to this Court that 21 are those that are essential so as to prove documents, transactions and/or the case of the defence in its totality. He further contends that the order dated 17th November, 2004, which enjoins the accused to bear the entire expenses of video conference is also unfair since it is the duty of the State to ensure that equality is maintained between the prosecution and the defence. Further, the video conference itself is in the nature of Court proceedings. In such a case, it is the State's responsibility to bear the expenses that are necessary for a Court proceeding.