Chapter XXIII
Section 284 CrPC: When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued
New Law Update (2024)
Section 265 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Any Criminal Court, particularly Magistrate's Court
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Court or Magistrate that the examination of a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, and that the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the Court or Magistrate may dispense with such attendance and may issue a commission for the examination of the witness in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; Provided that where the examination of the President or the Vice-President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory as a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, a commission shall be issued for the examination of such a witness.
(2) The Court may, when issuing a commission for the examination of a witness for the prosecution, direct that such amount as the Court considers reasonable to meet the expenses of the accused including the pleader’s fees, be paid by the prosecution.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 284(1) CrPC
This sub-section allows a court to excuse a witness from physical attendance and order their examination via a commission, but only if their presence is vital for justice and cannot be secured without unreasonable delay, expense, or difficulty. It also mandates the issuance of a commission for the examination of high-ranking officials like the President or a Governor.
Section 284(2) CrPC
This sub-section empowers the court to direct the prosecution to cover the reasonable expenses of the accused, including their legal fees, when a commission is issued for examining a prosecution witness, ensuring fairness to the accused.
Landmark Judgements
P. Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1999):
The Andhra Pradesh High Court underscored that the power to issue a commission under this section is an exceptional one, requiring strict fulfillment of the conditions laid down in sub-section (1). It emphasized that the court’s discretion should be exercised judiciously, only when physical attendance cannot be secured without unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience, and when it is essential for achieving the ends of justice.
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. P.C. Sawant and Ors. (2004):
The Bombay High Court affirmed that the issuance of a commission is a discretionary power to be exercised cautiously. It clarified that mere claims of inconvenience are insufficient; the applicant must convincingly demonstrate that a witness’s attendance cannot reasonably be procured, making examination via commission a necessity for the proper administration of justice.