Court’s duty is not merely to conclude trial, but seek truth: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 22

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the court’s onerous duty is not merely to conclude a trial, but to seek the truth within the established judicial realms by following the procedural laws.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted every trial was a voyage of discovery, in which truth was the quest. The discovery and vindication of truth was the solemn duty of a court during the trial, which ensured the conviction of the guilty and protection of the innocent.

Justice Brar asserted the courts were required to ensure that the chaff was separated from the grain and the stream of justice was not clogged by unnecessary impediments. The Bench, at the same time, asserted that the trial was required to be conducted under the settled practices and the procedure laid down by the legislature in its wisdom”.

“The courts must proceed with an intention to seek the truth and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to ensure that the foundational right of the accused to a fair trial is not trampled and all stakeholders are insulated from any prejudice caused by deviating from the prescribed procedure,” Justice Brar asserted.

The ruling came on a petition filed by an accused through counsel Gaurav Vir Singh Behl for quashing impugned order dated March 14, whereby an Additional Sessions Judge/fast track special court under POCSO allowed application filed by the complainant under Section 311-A in a sexual harassment case registered under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act.

Appearing before Justice Brar’s Bench, Behl contended that the trial Court gravely erred by allowing the complainant to exhibit a document as it was neither taken into possession during investigation, nor was it a part of the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC.

He added the document was allegedly self-incriminating in nature. As such, the petitioner could not be forced to supply his specimen signatures as it would be violative of his rights under Article 20(3).

Setting aside the impugned order, Justice Brar asserted procedural justice could not be sacrificed on the altar of substantive justice. The two forms were essential components of administration of justice. The bypassing of procedural justice often prejudiced the trial and impeded the constitutional right of the parties to free and fair trial.

Justice Brar observed: “While it is true that procedure is the handmaid of justice, pragmatic judicial practice requires that only when it is expedient in the interest of justice and does not cause prejudice to the prosecution or the defence, that deviation from the procedure may be made. Otherwise, any such deviation from the procedural safeguards would be impermissible and would defeat the ends of justice”.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.