GANGULA SURYANARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application was made by the accused persons for securing the copies of the statements of prosecution witnesses free of cost. The relevant facts and the questions involved were elaboratly discussed by learned single Judge in his order dated 5/03/1999. The relevant portion is given below; "This petition raises an important question of law. The petitioners are accused in S. C. No. 330 of 1998. The trial is going on. There are 430 witnesses cited by the prosecution. 70 witnesses have already been examined. The accused are charged for the offences under Section 120-B, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 and 112 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Explosive Substance Act. They are in judicial custody since November, 1997. There was an occurrence near Rama Naidu Studios, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in which a bomb blast took place, 25 people died and several others received injuries. The petitioners moved application for bail before the trial Court which was dismissed. They approached the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the application. The petitioners state that they are not in a position to meet the full expenses which are being incurred by them while defending themselves. The offences with which the petitioners are charged are serious in nature and may result even with the punishment of death or life imprisonment. There are 430 witnesses. On an average if a statement of a witness is recorded on 5 pages the volume of the whole testimony would be in the range of 2000 pages. The costs which are being charged by the Courts for furnishing a certified copy of each page in Rs.2/-. So, every accused will have to incur costs of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- on securing copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses alone. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the criminal Rules of Practice or Circulars prescribing supply of depositions free of cost. When this matter came up before this Court for admission, this Court directed the Public prosecutor to get instructions. As the case was of emergency it was directed that it shall be taken up for disposal immediately. The learned Public Prosecutor however stated that there is a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code being Section 363 which only entitles supply of copy of the judgment free of cost when a person is sentenced to imprisonment. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which entitled the petitioners to seek copies of depositions of the witnesses free of costs........." We have heard Mr. M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General and Mr. Kannabhiran, Senior counsel in detail. Though the learned Advocate General has not opposed that a fair trial would include supply of copies of depositions of prosecution witnesses to the accused persons during the trial but he submitted that there is no provision empowering the Courts to do so, therefore it will have to be left to the legislature or to the High Court which has some powers for making rules. But, Mr. Kannabhiran on the other hand submitted that, in view of the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India it would not be necessary to have an amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code. According to him there would also be not any necessity of making any fresh rules because it is already mandated by Article 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution that the person who are brought as accused before the Courts should have a fair trial. Fair trial is not an abstract word but has a meaning and the meaning to it has been given by the Apex Court from time to time in many of its landmark judgments. Since the law has crystallized and the cantors of fair trial are now well known because of the historical pronouncements of the Apex Court therefore there would be no difficulty in holding that the right to get copies of depositions by the accused is part of a fundamental right and is contained in Article 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution. Mr. Kannabhiran also submitted that, it is well known that an accused person is treated innocent till his guilt is proved therefore he should know the exact accusation against him before he puts up his defence. He also submits that even the Criminal Procedure Code did not contain a provision earlier for appointing a defence counsel in appropriate cases by the Court on account of the accused being not in a position to appoint a counsel, but only because of the judgments of the Apex Court such a provision was enacted in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, he submits that, there was no provision for free legal aid but Section 340 (1) of the Old Code which is equivalent to Section 303 of the new Code received creative and constructive interpretation from the Supreme Court and a right to be defended by a lawyer was considered to be fundamental. Although earlier the Supreme Court had taken a view that appointment of an advocate at the expense of the State to defend an accused was only a privilege and not a right (Tara Singh v. State, AIR 1951 SC 441 but in R. M. Wasava v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1143 the Supreme Court pointed out that providing a lawyer would also mean that sufficient time and complete papers should be made available so that the Advocate chosen may serve the cause of justice with all the ability at his command. The case before the Supreme Court was an appeal by a convict from jail. The appeal was dismissed, however the judgment assumed importance which can be gathered from reproducing the judgment in full. In His usual style Justice Krishna Iyer, as his Lordship then was, was can did, crystal clear and crisp while laying down important law;

(2.) Now, in this context if we see, if an accused person is not able to pay for the copies of the depositions how could he prepare for effective defence. In the present case, it was pointed out that there were about 430 witnesses and each accused has to pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- for obtaining copies. If an accused person is not in a position to get these copies we wonder how can his Advocate address the Court while defending the accused. We may also point out that the principles which flow from the Criminal Procedure Code also do not suggest that the copies of depositions should not be given free of cost although there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure directing supply of copies of depositions free of cost. Even when the trial commences under Section 207 it is laid down that;

(3.) In a judgment reported in M. H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548 the Supreme Court was of the view that, one of the important components of fair procedure is natural justice. The Court was dealing with the right to appeal and it held that, "there are two requirements which must be fulfilled, (1) service of a copy of the judgment to the prisoner in time to file an appeal and (2) provision of free legal services to a prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance where the ends of justice call for such service". The Court held that, both these requirements in fact are State's responsibilities under Article 21.