Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Washim, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur challenging an order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. The impugned order rejected an application (Exh. 69) made by the Special Public Prosecutor seeking to reject the vakalatnama filed by Advocate Mr. More on behalf of the approver, Madhuri Badrinarayan Gote, and to shift the approver from District Central Prison, Washim to Central Jail, Akola. The respondent, Madhuri Gote, was originally accused No.2 in Crime No. 23/2020 registered at Police Station Washim City for offences punishable under Sections 302, 364-A, 363, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The crime involved the kidnapping and murder of a 15-year-old girl, the niece of the informant. The approver was the wife of accused No.1. During the pendency of the trial, the approver expressed her desire to become an approver, and the Special Public Prosecutor made an application for tendering pardon. The Sessions Court, by order dated 17.02.2022, rejected that application. Subsequently, the prosecution filed the application Exh. 69, which was rejected by the Sessions Court on 18.05.2023. The State challenged this rejection in the High Court. The High Court heard the matter and framed the issue of whether the prosecution's application was maintainable. The Court noted that the approver, though a witness, retains the right to engage a counsel of her choice under Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. There is no legal bar preventing an approver from having legal representation. The prosecution's application sought to curtail this fundamental right. Regarding the transfer to another jail, the Sessions Court found no material to support the allegation that the approver was influencing witnesses. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's order, finding no perversity or illegality. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Approver - Right to Counsel - Section 306, 307 CrPC, Section 303 CrPC, Article 22(1) Constitution of India - The prosecution sought rejection of the vakalatnama filed by the advocate for the approver and transfer of the approver to another jail. The Sessions Court rejected the application. The High Court held that there is no legal bar for an approver to engage a counsel of her choice. The approver, though a witness, retains the right to legal representation under Section 303 CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The prosecution's application was not maintainable as it sought to curtail the approver's fundamental right. (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Approver - Transfer to Another Jail - No Grounds - The prosecution sought transfer of the approver to Central Jail, Akola on the ground that she was influencing witnesses. The Sessions Court found no material to support this allegation. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's order, noting that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of witness tampering. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution's application to reject the vakalatnama filed by the advocate for the approver and to shift the approver to another jail was maintainable and justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim dated 18.05.2023. The rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Approver's right to engage counsel
- Section 306 CrPC
- Section 307 CrPC
- Section 303 CrPC
- Article 22(1) Constitution of India
- right to legal representation
- approver's status as witness
- no legal bar for approver to have counsel
