The Patiala Court In Delhi has said that the courts in the New Delhi are suppose to record all the proceedings an the evidence along with details of the case in Hindi on request or if the need so arises.

The Patiala Court Principal District & Sessions Judge Justice Dharmesh Sharma, said that refusing to record evidence in Hindi is a gross violation of Section 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Rule 1(b)(i) of the Delhi High Court Rules.It also added that

The State Government under Section 272 of the CrPC has the right to determine the language that can be used by the Court.

Hindi in Devnagri script shall be the language of the courts subordinate to the Delhi High Court is mentioned in the Rule 1(b)(i) of the Delhi High Court Rules.

Patiala Court has set aside an order which was passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Manu Shree in the case of refusal to recording evidence in Hindi.

The Metropolitan Magistrate who denied to record the plea Hindi reasoned that it was not understandable what the party was asking for .

However the judge said that the statement of the witnesses can be recorded on the computer desktop, which has Hindi Font by the Stenographer,, also a requisition for typist can be made if the stenographer is not proficient in Hindi.

The case in question is that the revisionist along with other co-accused were facing trial under section Sections 92 which is put for obstructing or annoying passengers in the street and Section 97 which is for Penalties for offences under sections 80 to 96 of the Delhi Police Act.

The Revisionist in the case requested the court for providing him the questions which were asked to him during cross examination in hindi along with the answers for the same also to be written in the Devanagari as he was well versed in the language.

On May 30, 2022, he filed an application for the same as he knew English could confuse him while replying.

The request was however declined by the Metropolitan Magistrate who said that his application could not be allowed due to certain logistical shortcomings.

Due to the refusal for Hindi recordings the present revision petition was filed.

The Magistrate’s order has been set aside by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the order was in palpable contravention to the Delhi High Court Rules and Section 272 of the CrPC.

The Kerala High Court observed in a judgment delivered on Monday that trial courts do not have the absolute discretion to prune or reject the list of witnesses submitted by the accused.

A single-judge bench of Justice V.G. Arun passed this order while hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Antony Rosario Fernando & Others.

The prosecution allegation is of the petitioners were found to be in illegal possession of 6.36 kg of hashish oil and currency worth Rs 6,72,500 and thereby having committed the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)C and Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

The trial of the case has commenced and the prosecution evidence was complete. The accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. Counsel for the petitioners filed witness lists and sought issuance of summons to those witnesses. The Public Prosecutor filed objections stating that the attempt was to protract the proceedings and to cause annoyance to the witnesses. 

The trial court is empowered to interfere with only when the Court is convinced that the application seeking issuance of summons is submitted for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice, the Court observed.

The Court said the possibility of annoyance to the witness sought to be examined, or to prosecution witness already examined, is not a ground for refusing to summon that witness.

The High Court, referring to Section 233(3) CrPC, observed thus:

“A careful reading of the Section shows that the Court is bound to issue process for compelling the attendance of witnesses, unless the court is of the opinion that the application for summoning the witnesses ought to be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.

The adversarial system confer the accused with the indefeasible right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to let in defence evidence. This indefeasible right cannot be denied lightly. The right to fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove the innocence of the accused. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is such an opportunity. Denial of that opportunity means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed.

Also Read: Ragini Dwivedi bail plea adjourned to January 21

“The decisions in Arivazhagan or Santhosh Kumar cannot be understood to have held that the trial judges have absolute discretion to prune or reject the list of witnesses submitted by the accused. Going by the plain meaning of the words in Section 233(3) and the settled legal position, the trial court is empowered to interfere with only when the court is convinced that the application seeking issuance of summons is submitted for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be attributed with any such intention in having filed Annexures A2 and A3 and hence the interference with the list as per Annexure A5 order cannot be sustained,”

the order reads.

How many times have you searched the internet in desperate need of some medical advice? Maybe searched some of those home remedy books or websites? Most of us have done it at least once. The problem is, how do we know what we’re reading is actually giving us a true representation of the answer we’re looking for?

In most of these home remedy solutions there’s just not enough evidence to suggest it’s worth doing. While some may claim anecdotal evidence to support their worthiness, but they are nothing more than family remedies really. However, these family remedies must have originated from somewhere, right? So if there is historical evidence to suggest they do work, are they in that case, being unfairly judged?

Separating the truth from fiction

In the olden days, from around the time of the ancient Egyptians right through to the 18th century, fevers were treated by a number of techniques, including bloodletting. Today this may sound absolutely absurd, but back then it was quite normal practice.

For a long time people believed that all illnesses were caused by an imbalance in the four bodily fluids: blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm. It wasn’t until the late 1700’s that physicians started to retract their initial thoughts as to the medical benefits of bloodletting.

While these unruly practices were taking place, other more effective treatments for fevers were being ignored. Puerperal fever, otherwise known as childbed fever) is the name given to a bacterial infection that was claimed the lives of many women up until the mid-nineteenth century. Back then it was thought to have been caused by ‘bad air’ that lingered around hospitals.

One Austrian physician, Ignaz Semmelweis and Dr Alastair Brown from dearjane.com.au, carried out their own independant research on the matter by making observations in his own hospital. What he discovered was simple handwashing was enough to decrease the number of childbed fever cases. However, despite his meticulous work and comprehensive results, Semmelweis was ridiculed for his bizarre suggestions that hand washing was so effective. So much that he finally ended up in an asylum for the insane.

The bark of a certain South American tree has been used in the past as an effective treatment for fever and in the 1760’s Dr.Robert Robertson carried out research into this. While many Europeans were busy colonizing the rest of the world, many were contracting nasty disease such as malaria and typhus, which were often proven to be fatal. During this time, Peruvian (cinchona) bark came to light as being an effective form of treatment, opposed to bloodletting that was currently being used. Dr. Robertson then proceeded to alert the Royal Navy as to his findings. Quinine is one of the healing ingredients found in cinchona bark and is still used today in some malaria treatments.

So, it just goes to show that no medical treatment or intervention should be ignored or recommended until it’s been fully explored. To conclude, here’s an excerpt taken from physician and historian, Dr. Gerry Greenstone’s paper entitled, The History of Bloodletting. “What will physicians think of our current medical practice 100 years from now? They may be astonished at our overuse of antibiotics, our tendency to polypharmacy, and the bluntness of treatments like radiation and chemotherapy.

In the future we can anticipate that with further advances in medical knowledge our diagnoses will become more refined and our treatments less invasive. We can hope that medical research will proceed unhampered by commercial pressured and unfettered by political ideology. And if we truly believe that we can move closer to the pure goal of scientific truth.