Holding

The omission to cross‑examine deponents of formal‑character affidavits and not put that evidence under Section 313 does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings; the conviction stands if the remaining evidence establishes guilt.

Summary

The State of Punjab convicted Naib Din under Section 9 of the Opium Act for possession of opium, relying in part on affidavits of two police officers who had handled the seized sample. The High Court, on revision, quashed the conviction because the affidavits were not cross‑examined and their contents were not put to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the omission of cross‑examination of deponents and the failure to include formal‑character evidence in the Section 313 interrogation vitiated the trial. It held that affidavits of a purely formal nature are admissible under Section 296 CrPC without mandatory cross‑examination, and that such an omission alone does not invalidate the conviction unless prejudice is shown. Since no objection was raised at trial or appeal and the remaining evidence proved guilt, the conviction could not be set aside. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the revision was remitted for fresh disposal.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to cross‑examine deponents of affidavits of formal character and the failure to put such evidence before the accused under Section 313 CrPC vitiates the conviction.
Whether evidence of a formal character may be admitted solely by affidavit under Section 296 CrPC without cross‑examination.
Whether an omission of formal‑character evidence, without showing of prejudice, is sufficient ground for a revisional court to set aside a conviction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 296, s. 313
Opium Act, 1857s. 9

Subjects

Criminal Procedure CodeSection 296Section 313affidavit evidenceformal evidencecross‑examinationrevisional jurisdictionOpium Actconviction

Judgment

A STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
NAIB DIN

SEPTEMBER 28, 2001

B [K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 296 and 313-Formal
Evidence-Deposition of-On affidavit deponents not cross-examined-:-
No request for cross-examination Failure to put question to the accused
c regatding the evidence-Conviction set aside by High Court in Revisional
Jurisdiction-On appeal held acqui~tal not just{fied-Failure to put question
to the accused is too insufficient .for holding that the proceedings were
vitiated-Even if such evidence is of vital nature effort should be made to undo
or correct that lapse-And if it cannot be corrected, court should consider the
impact of the lapse on the overall aspect of the case-Opium Act, 1857-
D Section 9.

Respondent-accused was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium
Act 1857. In the trial court two police officers who had handled the opium
and taken the same to chemical examiner had deposed on affidavit. Accused
E made no request to summon the deponents for cross-examination.
Conviction, in appeal was confirmed by Sessions Court. High Court, in the
revision petition quashed the conviction of the accused-respondent on the
ground that deponents were not tendered for cross-examination; and that
the affidavits were also not put to the accused for the purpose of his t
F statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the case back to the High Court,
the Court

HELD : 1. In the present case, the facts stated in the affidavit were
G purely of a formal character. At any rate, even the defence could not
dispute that aspect because no request or motion was made on behalf of
the accused to summon the deponents of those affidavits to be examined in
Court. In such a situation it was quite improper that the High Court used
such a premise for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed on the
H respondent, that too in revisional proceedings. [400-E]
396
STATE v. NAIB DIN [THOMAS, J.] 397
2.1. In observing that the contents ofthe affidavit were not put to the A
accused during the examination under Section 313 of the Code, the Court
over-looked the formal nature of the evidence. It was too pedantic an
insistence on the part of the High Court that every item of evidence, even
of a formal nature, should also form part of the questions under Section
313 of the Code. [400-F; G)
B
2.2. The omission to put the question concerning evidenc~ which is
purely of a formal nature, is too insufficient for holding thatthe proceedings
were vitiated. Respondent failed to show that there ras any failure of
justice on account of the omission to put a question concerning such formal
evidence when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code. No c
objection was raised in the trial court on the ground of such omission.
No ground was taken up in the appellate court on such ground. If
such objection was not raised at appellate stage the revisional court
should not normally boother about it. If any appellate court or revisional
court comes across that the trial court had ·not put any question to an
D
accused even if it is of a vital nature, such omission alone should not result
in setting aside the conviction and sentence as an inevitable consequence.
Effort should be made to undo or correcl the lapse. If it is not possible to
correct it by any means the Court should then consider the impact of the
lapse on the ov-erall aspect of the case. After keeping that particular item of
evidence aside, if the remaining evidence is sufficient to bring home the E
guilt of the accused, the lapse does not matter much, and can be sidelined
justifiably. But if the lapse is so vital as would affect the entire case, the
appellate or revisional court can endeavour to see whether it could be
rectified. [400-H; 401-A; B; C]
F
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, [1973) 2 SCC 793
and Basavaraj Patil v. State of Karnataka, [2000] 8 SCC 740, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 995
of 2001.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Crl. R. No. 1323 of 1988.

Seeraj Bagga and R.S. Suri for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

The evidence of a policeman was tendered in a criminal trial by means
of an affidavjt but it was not accepted by the High Court and consequently the
entire prosecution case was thrown over board. The conviction and sentence
passed on an accused were resultantly quashed on that ground alone. The State
B of Punjab challenges the said verdict of the High Court in this appeal by special
leave.The respondent was charge-sheeted by the police for the offence under
Section 9 of the Opium Act before the Court of a Judicial Magistrate of lst
· Cfass, Ludhiana. The substance of the allegation against him was that he was
found in possession of 4.5 kg. of opium wrapped in glazed papers on i 1.10.1984.
c The polfce version was this: while some of the police personnel were returning
afte~ patrol duty they came across the respondent near the railway crossing at
Kanod viliage (Sanhewal in Ludhiana district). On seeing the police he. tried
to run away from the scene and then the police felt suspicious about him and
intercepted him. When a search was conducted the police could seize the
contraband article (Opium) from him. The police officials separated ten grams
D of Opium as a sample and put it in a matcflbox and sealed it. The sample was
forwarded to the Chemical Examiner, who, after testing the same, reported that
it -was opium. On completion of the investigation the police laid the charge ,.
t
sheet against the respondent. )

Prosecution examined Head Constable Dhian Singh as PWI and Head
E
Constable Ranji Dass as PW2. Ex. PD is the report of the Chemical Examiner.
Two police personnel (Mr. Satpal Singh and Mr. Sohan Lal) produced affidavits
regarding the role-played by them in forwarding the sample to the Chemical
.Examiner. When the respondent w~s examined under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (For short 'the Code') he repudiated the allegations
,F made against him and put forward a version that the police nurtured vengeance
towards him for not obliging them by becoming a witness in another .case.
According to th·e respondent the police had falsely concocted the present case
against him to teac;h him a lesson,, He further said that he was taken from his
house on the early morning of 11.11.1984 and brought to the police station and
G foisted the case on him.

The trial magistrate found that the evidence of prosecution was enough
to convict him of the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. Accordingly,
he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The Sessions Court upheld the
conviction and Sf'fltence and dismissed the appeal filed by him. Respondent
H filed a revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Learned Single
STATE v. NAIB DIN [THOMAS, J.) 399
Judge who disposed of the revision did not think it necessary to go into the A
details of the case. The following is what the learned Single Judge said:

"There is no need at all to go into the details of this case in as much
as it has been undisputed during the course of arguments before this
court that affidavits of police officials, who had handled the opium and
taken the same to the Chemical Examiner, even though filed in court, B
no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine those, who
had filed their affidavits. In other words, they were not tendered for
cross-examination. Further, it has remained undisputed that affidavits
of these witnesses were not even put to petitioner in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C." c
We feel that the view adopted by the learned Single judge was too stilted
for approval. At any rate, acquittal of the accused even without affording an
opportunity to the prosecution to make up the lapse (if it was a lapse) only
resulted in miscarriage of justice. Presently we may consider whether it is
necessary for the prosecution, as an indispensable course to examine the police D
official who played only a formal role during investigation. In this context
Section 296 of the Code can be read:

"(l) The evidence of any person whose evidence is of a formal
character may be given by affidavit and may, subject to all just
E
exceptions, be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding
under this Code.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the
prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any such person as
to the facts contained in his affidavits." F
The normal mode of giving evidence is by examining the witness in
Court. But that course involves, quite often, spending of time of the witness,
the trouble to reach the court and wait till he is called by the Court, besides
all the strain in answering questions and cross-questions in open court. It also
involves costs which on many occasions are not small. Should a person be G
troubled by compelling him to go :o the court and depose if the evidence which
he is to give is purely of a formal nature? The enabling provision of Section
296 is thus a depai:ture from the usual mode of giving evidence. The object of
providing such a~ exception is to help the court to gain the time and cost,
besides relieving the witness of his troubles, when all that the said witness has H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A to say in court relates only to some formal points.

What is meant by an evidence of a formal character? It depends upon
the facts of the case. Quite often different steps adopted by police officers
during the investigation might relate to formalities prescribed by law. Evidence,
if necessary on those formalities, should normally be tendered by affidavits and
not by examining all such policemen in court. If any party to a lis wishes to
examine the deponent of the affidavit it is open to him to make an application
before the . Court that he requires the deponent to be examined or cross-
examined in Court. This·is provided in sub-section (2) of Section 296 of the
Code. When any such application is made it is the duty of the Court to call such
c person to the court for the purpose of being examined.

In Shankaria v. State o.fRajasthan, (1978] 4 SCC 453 this Court accepted
the evidence tendered on affidavit filed by a policeman who had taken specimen
finger-prints of the accused in the case. The contention advanced in this Court
that the said affidavit should not be relied on was repelled by the three-judge
D bench in the afore-cited decision.

In the present case, the facts stated in the affidavit were purely of a
formal character. At any rate, even the defence could not dispute that aspect
because no request or motion was made on behalf of the accused to summon
the deponents of those affidavits to be examined in Court. In such a situation
E
it was quite improper that the High Court used such a premise for setting aside
the conviction and sentence passed on the respondent, that too in revisional
proceedings.

Added to the above, learned Single Judge observed that the contents of
F the said affidavit were. not put to the accused during the examination under
Section 313 of the Code. Learned Single judge, on that score also, over-looked
the formal nature of the evidence. The substantive evidence relating to the
sample is the result of the chemical examination. There is no grievance for the
accused that the trial court did not put that aspect to the accused when he was
questioned under Section 313 of the Code. If so it was too pedantic an insistence
G
that every item of evidence, even of a formal nature, should also form part of
the questions under Section 313 of the Code.

That apart, respondent failed to show that there was any failure of justice
on account of the omission to put a question concerning such formal evidence
H when he was examined under Section 313 of the code. No objection was raised
STATE v. NAIB DIN [THOMAS, J.] 401
in the trial court on the ground of such omission. No ground was taken up in A
the appellate court on such ground. If any appellate court or revisional court
comes across that the trial court had not put any question to an accused even
if it is of a vital nature, such omission alone should not result in setting aside
the conviction and sentence as an inevitable consequence. Effort should be
made to undo or correct the lapse. If it is not possible to correct it by any means B
the court should then consider the impact of the lapse on the overall aspect of
the case. After keeping that particular item of evidence aside, if the remaining
evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, the lapse does not
matter much, and can be sidelined justifiably. But if the lapse is so vital as
would affect the entire case, the appellate or revisional court can endeavour to
see whether it could be rectified. c
How is it possible to rectify or undo the lapse if it pertains to a vital piece
of evidence?

A three-judge bench of this Court has observed in Shiva.ii Sahabrao
D
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, [1973] 2 SCC 793 that such an omission does
not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice was established by the
accused If the accused succeeds in showing any prejudice it is open to the
appellate court to call upon the counsel for the accused to show what explanation
the accused has got regarding the circumstances not put to him.
E
In Basavaraj Patil v. State of Karnataka, [2000] 8 SCC 740 a three-judge
bench has followed the aforesaid observation and stated thus:

"The above approach shows that some dilution of the rigour of the
provision can be made even in the light of a contention raised by the

-
/
accused that non-questioning him on a vital circumstance by the trial
court has cau~ed prejudice to him. The explanation offered by the
counsel of the accused at the appellate stage was held to be a sufficient
F

substitute for the answers given by the accused himself."

If such objection was not raised at the appellate stage the revisional court G
should not normally bother about it. At any rate, the omission to put the
question concerning evidence which is purely of a formal nature, is too
insufficient for holding that the proceedings were vitiated. The evidence sought
to be advanced through the affidavits in this case is, no doubt, only of a formal
nature.
H
402· SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A For aforesaid reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the if!1pugned
judgment of the High Court. We remit the revision filed by the respondent
before the High Court to be disposed of afresh after affording a reasonable
opportunity to both sides for hearing.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
B
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.