telecaster to supply vide of telecast in case against telecaster
Indo-Asian News Channel Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 25 April, 2023
O.P.(Crl.) No.703/22
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1945
OP(CRL.) NO. 703 OF 2022
AGAINST CRL.MP 814/2022 IN CRL.MP 2478/2021 IN SC 118/2018
OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT (SPE/CBI)-III,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS:
1 INDO-ASIAN NEWS CHANNEL PVT LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
MR. M.V. NIKESH KUMAR,
REPORTER STUDIO COMPLEX,
HMT COLONY, PIN - 683503
2 M.V. NIKESH KUMAR
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. M.V. RAGHAVAN,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
INDO-ASIAN NEWS CHANNEL PVT.LTD
MELETHU VEEDU, BARNASSERI,
PAPPINISSERI VILLAGE
KANNUR, PIN - 683503
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU
SRI.BOBAN PALAT
SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
SRI.P.U.PRATHEESH KUMAR
SRI.P.R.AJAY
SRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
SRI.ABHISHEK M. KUNNATHU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
O.P.(Crl.) No.703/22
-:2:-
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 P. GOPALAKRISHNAN @ DILEEP
PADMA SAROVARAM HOUSE,
KOTTARAKADAVU, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
3 BAIJU PAULOSE
DY. S.P., CRIME BRANCH,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
4 P. BALACHANDRA KUMAR
S/O. P.PUSHKARAN,
MANKALA PADIPURA, MANGOOTTAM,
THIRUPURAM. P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695133
BY ADVS.
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.V.T.LITHA
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SMT.NITYA R.
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2023,
THE COURT ON 25.04.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(Crl.) No.703/22
16. The next contention urged was based on Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects an accused from self-incrimination. The provision reads that 'no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself'. The provision requires three main ingredients to be satisfied, and they are (i) he must be accused of an O.P.(Crl.) No.703/22 offence, (ii) that he must be compelled to be a witness and (iii) that compulsion must be to be a witness against himself.
17. The purpose of the statute directing trial of certain categories of cases to be held in camera has a salutary objective. No person, including the press, can report what transpires inside the court or discuss or publish the statement of witnesses or even disclose the evidence in cases that are being tried in camera. When allegations are raised about publishing details of a trial of an in camera proceedings, it is essential, in public interest, as well for the court, to ascertain details of the matter published or telecasted. In the process of ascertaining or verifying the details, the petitioners who are not even named as accused, cannot claim the privilege of the doctrine against self-incrimination. Further, in the instant case, all that has been directed to be produced are materials that are already in public domain and a part of which are already produced in court in a pen-drive. Since the contents of the pen-drive were objected to by the petitioners stating that they were only piecemeal production, the Court directed the production of the materials for comparison to arrive at a conclusion regarding the veracity of the materials produced by the second respondent. By no stretch of imagination can the direction be termed as compelling the petitioners to be a witness against themselves.
18. In this context, it is apposite to bear in mind the decision in O.P.(Crl.) No.703/22 Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2019) 8 SCC 1], wherein the Supreme Court held that, directing an accused to give a voice sample during the process of investigation for comparison, would not fall within the vice of Article 20(3) as they are only materials for comparison in order to lend assurance to the court on the inference based on the other pieces of evidence. Thus the contention based on the doctrine against self-incrimination is rejected.