IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4012 OF 2024 (@ SLP (CRL.) NO. 9911/2023)

Digitally signed by geeta ahuja Date: 2024.09.27 18:08:38 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified

SIGAMANI APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted

2. In the captioned appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in Criminal OP (MD) No.10779 of 2023.

3. The appellant who is the 1st accused in FIR No.5 of 2023 registered at Police Station, CBCID Ramnathpuram under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(3), 263 IPC and Sections 5(1), 6, 16, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POSCO Act'), was arrested on 04.03.2023. He moved an application for bail which was granted and he was enlarged on bail on 03.05.2023 with stringent conditions. Thereafter, the trial had commenced (in Special SC Nos.33 and 34 of 2023) before the Court of Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram and the victim was examined on 03.07.2023.

bail before the High Court as Crl. M.P. No.954 of 2023 which came to be dismissed. Later, in June, 2023, the State moved an application for cancellation of bail of the appellant stating that while dismissing the application moved by the 3rd accused for bail, observation was made by the High Court which appears to be causative reason for filing the said application for cancellation of bail of the appellant. As noted earlier, it is thereafter that the examination of the victim had taken place on 03.07.2023. The impugned order was passed thereafter by the High Court on the application moved by the prosecution for cancellation of bail of the appellant who is accused No.1 cancelling the bail granted to the appellant as per order dated 03.05.2023 by the Sessions Court. As for the same, the High Court went on to pass an order to transfer the trial of the case (in Special SC Nos.33 and 34 of 2023) from the Court of Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram to Special Court for POSCO Act cases, Srivilliputhur and further ordered thus :

"Now, the trial court is directed to transfer the entire records to the transferee court immediately. The transferee court may assign new number, intimate the parties and proceed with the case in accordance with law. Since, proper procedure has not been followed, while examining the victim girl, de novo trial is ordered. The transferee court is directed to take up the trial process from the stage of framing of charges. The entire trial process, in both matters, shall be completed within a period of five months from the date of receipt of the records from the trial court."

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Amicus Curiae ably assisted by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel. 6. In view of the order we propose to pass, we think it absolutely unnecessary to consider the rival contentions and which course was accepted by the parties. A scanning of the impugned order would reveal that the foundation for the order is the formation of opinion of the High Court that the appellant had influenced the victim and won over. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that opinion was formed by the High Court without any basis or evidence. As observed earlier, we are not going to consider the verity or otherwise of the same in view of the reason mentioned supra.

6. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Amicus Curiae in the elaborate written submission filed along with the compilation of judgments brought to our notice the palpable failure to follow the mandatory procedures which are to be scrupulously followed in a trial in connection with an offence allegedly committed, in terms of Section 33(2) of the the POSCO Act. It is submitted that even without going into the correctness or otherwise of the finding whether the reason for the victim failing to support the prosecution is the influence exerted by the appellant, the non-compliance with the mandatory procedures itself is a good reason to sustain the impugned order.

7. We have perused the materials on record and the reasons assigned by the High Court and also the decisions referred to in the compilation by the learned

Amicus Curiae. There can be no two views on the requirement of scrupulous adherence to the procedures prescribed in the matter of trial of an offence under Section 33(2) of the POSCO Act. Such procedures are prescribed with definite purposes and object to ensure a fair trial to the victim. In such circumstances, there cannot be any doubt to the position that deviation from the prescribed procedures would not result in a fair trial. At the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the position that trial should be fair to the accused as well. In view of the indisputable and undisputed position as relates the trial, so far undertaken, we do not think that any interference is required with respect to the directions ultimately given under the impugned order. At the same breathe, we should say that permitting trial to proceed with an opinion that the appellant had influenced the victim may cause prejudice to the accused.

9. In such circumstances, to ensure that trial is conducted in a manner which is fair both to the victim and the accused and at the same time upon finding that cancellation of bail and consequential directions for transfer of the trial (in Special SC Nos.33 and 34 of 2023) from the court of Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram to the Special Court for POSCO Act cases, Srivilliputhur and a de novo trial cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or uncalled for in the circumstances obtained in this case, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal on the following lines :

(i) We maintain the order passed by the High Court to transfer Special SC Nos.33 and 34 of 2023 from the court of Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila

Court), Ramanathapuram to the Special Court for POSCO Act cases, Srivilliputhur to facilitate a fair trial. The entire records shall be transferred from the court of Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram to the Special Court for POSCO Act cases, Srivilliputhur immediately, at any rate within two weeks from today, if pursuant to the impugned order, the entire records were not so far transmitted to the transferee court.

(ii) On receipt of such records after complying the procedures, let the de novo trial in Special SC Nos.33 and 34 of 2023, after re-numbering the same be done expeditiously within the time prescribed in the impugned order, however, we make it clear that the said period would commence only from the date of commencement of the de novo trial.

(iii) The appellant shall surrender before the transferee Court within three weeks from today.

(iv) The trial Court shall ensure the examination of the victim is commenced and completed expeditiously. We make it clear that on conclusion of the examination of the victim, the appellant would be at liberty to renew his application for bail and in the event of his applying for bail, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and untrammelled by any observation made in the impugned order.

10. Before parting with the case, we place on record our deep appreciation to Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior counsel and Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel, who have provided their dispassionate and excellent professional

assistance in this matter.

11. The appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………….......................J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR )

……………………….......................J. ( SANJAY KAROL )

NEW DELHI 26th SEPTEMBER, 2024

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 9911/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-08-2023 in CRLOP(MD) No. 10779/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai)

SIGAMANI PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S)

([ MR. MANINDER SINGH, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL TO ASSIST THE HON'BLE COURT AND MR. ZOHEB HOSSAIN, ADVOCATE IS TO ASSIST MR. MANINDER SINGH, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL ]

IA No. 179533/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 165524/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 26-09-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv.(A.C.)

Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Adv.(A.C.)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR

• Mr. A Baskar, Adv.
• Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv.
• Ms. Madhulika, Adv.
• Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Adv.
• Mr. Amulya Dev, Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. V Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G.
• Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR
• Ms. Deepa S, Adv.
• Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv.
• Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv.
• Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.
• Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending

application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Mathew Abraham) (Geeta Ahuja) Court Master (NSH) Assistant Registrar-cum-PS (Signed Order is placed on the file)