CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION v. The State of Maharashtra

Order

13.07.2005 THE ORDER : 13.07.2005 THE ORDER : 13.07.2005 DATE OF PRONOUNCING DATE OF PRONOUNCING DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 19.09.2005 THE ORDER : 19.09.2005 THE ORDER : 19.09.2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:-

1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant i.e. original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The applicant is facing prosecution in C.C. No. 490/PS/2005. The said case is mainly under Section 304-A, 279, 427 of I.P.C. r.w. Section 130(1), 134(a) and (b) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The applicant has prayed that the trial relating to the said case be held in camera. The case of the applicant is that the members of media are after him (-2-) and they have given wide publicity to the incident. If the reporters report the comments made in the Court, in the media, it will cause damage to the defence raised on behalf of the accused. It is further submitted that the media and reporters would give wide publicity to every gesture of the witnesses while giving evidence and it will create unnecessary pressure on the witness. It is submitted that in such case the witness will not be able to depose before the Court freely and fearlessly. In such case, the applicant would not get a fair trial. Hence, it is prayed that the trial relating to the said case be held in camera.

4. Mr. Marwadi, the learned advocate for the applicant has fairly submitted that he is restricting the prayer of holding trial in camera only in respect of examination of the complainant Mr. Ravindra Patil. He has no objection if the other witnesses are examined in the open court.

5. An application had been preferred by the applicant before the learned Magistrate for holding trial in camera. The learned Magistrate by order dated 17.6.2005 rejected the said application. The ground on which the learned magistrate rejected the application is that the present case is not relating to sexual offence and the case is mainly under Section 304-A, 279, 427 of I.P.C. r.w. Section (-3-) 130(1), 134(a) and (b) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Magistrate has observed that he did not find any substance in the ground mentioned by the applicant for holding his trial in camera, hence, application came to be rejected.

6. Mr. Marwadi has placed reliance on the decision Naresh Shridhar of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported