Best Bakery Case
'...the justice delivery system was being taken for a ride and literally allowed to be abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge ... The public prosecutor appears to have acted more as a defence counsel than one whose duty was to present the truth
"The discovery and vindication and establishment of truth are main purposes certainly of the existenceof Courts of Justice; still, for the obtaining of these objects, which however valuable and important, cannotbe usefully pursued without moderation, cannot be either usefully or creditably pursued, unfairly or gained byunfair means, not every channel is or ought to be open to them. The practical inefficacy of torture is not, Isuppose, the most weighty objection to that mode of examination. Truth, like all other good things, may beloved unwisely – may be pursued too keenly – may cost too much".
"It is the merit of the common law that it decides the case first and determines the principleafterwards … It is only after a series of determination on the same subject matter, that it becomesnecessary to "reconcile the cases", as it is called, that is, by a true induction to state theprinciple which has until then been obscurely felt. And this statement is often modified more than once by newdecisions before the abstracted general rule takes its final shape. A well settled legal doctrine embodies thework of many minds, and has been tested in form as well as substance by trained critics whose practicalinterest is to resist it at every step."
"It is desirable that the requirement of fairness be separately identified since it transcends thecontent of more particularised legal rules and principles and provides the ultimate rationale and touchstoneof the rules and practices which the common law requires to be observed in the administration of thesubstantive criminal law."
"Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the centralcriterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relativeconvenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something moresubstantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendantenvironment, is necessituous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principlealthough the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's groundson this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any courthaving jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, theprocess of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.
But we do feel that good grounds for transfer from Jashpurnagar are made out because of the bitterness oflocal communal feeling and the tenseness of the atmosphere there. Public confidence in the fairness of a trialheld in such an atmosphere would be seriously undermined, particularly among reasonable Christians all overIndia not because the Judge was unfair or biased but because the machinery of justice is not geared to work inthe midst of such conditions. The calm detached atmosphere of a fair and impartial judicial trial wouldbe wanting, and even if justice were done it would not be "seen to be done". (A. X. Francis v.Banke Behari Singh AIR 1958 SC 309).
"It is a common experience in criminal courts that defence counsel would raise objections whenevercourts exercise powers under Section 311 of the Code or under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by sayingthat the court could not "fill the lacuna in the prosecution case". A lacuna in the prosecution isnot to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by a Public Prosecutor during trial, either inproducing relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage "to err ishuman" is the recognition of the possibility of making mistake of which humans are prone. A corollary ofany such laches or mistakes during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as a lacuna which a courtcannot fill up. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedgein the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial ofthe case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. Noparty in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevantmaterial was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting suchmistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice andnot to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performedbetter."
"In our view, in a murder trial it is sordid and repulsive matter that without informing the policestation officer-in-charge, the matters are proceeded by the court and by the APP and tried to be disposed ofas if the prosecution has not led any evidence. From the facts stated above, it appears that accused wants tofrustrate the prosecution by unjustified means and it appears that by one way or the other the Addl. SessionJudge as well as the APP have not take any interest in discharge of their duties. It was the duty of thesession judge to issue summons to the investigating officer if he failed to remain present at the time oftrial of the case. The presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is must. It is his duty tokeep the witnesses present. If there is failure on part of any witnesses to remain present, it is the duty ofthe court to take appropriate action including issuing of bailable/ non-bailable warrants as the case may be.It should be well understood that prosecution can not be frustrated by such methods and victims of the crimecannot be left lurch."
"We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of thepractice increasingly adopted by the High Courts of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgement.It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until areasoned judgement is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgementis announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall behanded over to one parent as against the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, orthat a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a detenue be released from detention. Ifthe object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeatedby the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the HighCourt. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the HighCourt, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is thatthe operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed, pending delivery of the reasoned judgement."