Criminal Procedure Code, Sec. 200 - how does it works......

Criminal Procedure Code, Sec. 200 - how does it works......

--------

Section 200 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act enacts that when the case for the prosecution is closed, if the Judge (i) wholly discredits the evidence on the part of prosecution or (ii) is of opinion that such evidence fails to establish the commission of the offence charged against the accused in the indictment or (iii) of any other offence of which he might be convicted on such indictment, he shall record a verdict of acquittal;

If however, the Judge CONSIDERS that there are grounds for proceeding with the trial he shall call upon the accused for his defence. (Emphasis added)

Section 200(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, focuses on two types of occurrences, when the case for the prosecution is closed. Initially, it places emphasis on the acquittal of the accused at the close of the prosecution case without calling for the defence.

The circumstances, under which a High Court Judge is empowered to acquit an accused, under 200(1) may be classified as follows ....

1. When the evidence adduced by the prosecution is wholly discredited by the Judge or

2. When such evidence fails to establish the commission of the

offence/offences in the indictment or

3. When the evidence adduced, does not point to the commission of any other offence/offences of which the accused might be convicted.

No lengthy discussion is necessary as to the manner in which an order' of acquittal has to be entered. Nevertheless, in passing it may not be inappropriate to observe that an order of acquittal under Section 200 (1) should necessarily accompany the reasons that prompted the exoneration of the accused from the charge / charges or any other charges he might otherwise be convicted. The rationale behind the obligation to set out the reasons for the acquittal of the accused without calling for the defence is that the acquittal constitutes the final decision in the case which is appealable at the instance of the State or an aggrieved party.

On the contrary, a decision to call for the defence under Section 200 (1) warrants different consideration. In terms of section 200 (1), when the Judge considers that there are grounds to proceed with the trial from the stage where the prosecution has closed the case, he shall call upon the accused for his defence. Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act (with the omission of Sub-Section (2) which is inapplicable to the instant application) reads as follows ....

200. (1) When the case for the prosecution is closed, if the Judge wholly discredits the evidence on the part of the prosecution or is of opinion that such evidence fails to establish the commission of the offence charged against the accused in the indictment or of any other offence of which he might be convicted on such indictment, he shall record a verdict of acquittal; if however the Judge CONSIDERS that there are grounds for proceeding with the trial he shall call upon the accused for his defence. (Emphasis added)

What needs to be addressed here is whether the Court is bound to give reasons before it decides to call for the defence under Section 200 (1). Perhaps, there may be cases in which the High Court Judges traditionally express their mind that the prosecution has unfolded a prima-facie case or that there are grounds for proceeding with the trial or similar words to that effect, prior to their proceeding to call for the defence. On a strict interpretation of the Section, we are disposed to think that at the end of the case for the prosecution; suffice it to say that there are grounds for proceedings with the trial or similar expression. In giving effect to Section 200 (1) of the Code, it must be borne in mind that when the High Court Judge does not wholly discredit the evidence on the part of the prosecution or is of opinion that such evidence establishes the commission of the offence or of any other offence, he is entitled to call for the defence.

The expression "there are grounds for proceeding with the trial" as used in Section 200 (1) cannot certainly suggest or convey that the High Court Judge is obliged to give elaborate reasons for his decision to call for the defence. The grounds for proceeding with the trial at the close of the case for the prosecution means nothing more than the High Court Judge CONSIDERING that there are grounds for proceeding with the trial. The ordinary meaning of the word 'CONSIDER' as it occurs in Section 200 (1) would mean "to think about carefully", especially in order to make a decision. Quite obviously, the Section does not make it obligatory on the part of the High Court Judge to give reasons as to why he considers the case as disclosed by the prosecution merits further trial. If elaborate reasons are required to be assigned before calling the defence, then, every High Court criminal trial (without a jury) ought to carry two Judgments, one at the close of the case for prosecution and the other at the close of the defence, i.e under Sections 200 and 203 respectively.

As far as Section 200 is concerned, the High Court Judge can proceed to call for the defence when he considers that there are grounds to proceed with the trial either on the charges preferred against him or when he considers that the accused might be convicted for any other offence. As such, when the High Court Judge proceeds to call for the defence, it is unsafe for a higher court to interfere with such a decision as the decision of the High Court to call for the defence involves the credibility of the evidence adduced before him on the charges preferred in the indictment or any other offence that may have been disclosed in evidence.

From the word of Justice A.W.A. Salam in Harold Rex Jansen v. Hon. Attorney General (CA Application No.151/13 decided on 26.02.2014)