Twin Blast Case Study

Words: 999
Pages: 4

Where the Court making the complaint is the High Court, by such officer of the High Court as the Court may appoint;
b) In any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.
It is respectfully submitted that Section 340(3)(b) needs to be amended, empowering any officer of the Court to file a complaint against such witnesses, thereby putting an end to the notion of bought over or hostile witnesses.
The High Courts also have to be vigilant in these matters if the criminal justice system is to be put on a proper pedestal. The system cannot be left at the mercy of the state machinery. In today's computer age, it's about time that all lower courts are linked up with their respective High Courts with a computer. A proper check should be maintained on the adjournments and recording of evidence. Further, the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils must play their part and put the criminal justice system back on track.
Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA)
The Twin Blast case: The role of witnesses and the issue of their protection has come in for much discussion after Shivnarayan Pandey, the taxi driver who gave clues in the August 25th 2003 Twin Blast case had to be given extra protection by the Mumbai Police.
The identity of the witness in this case was leaked to the media by an inspector on the day of the blasts. This officer allegedly circulated

Similar provisions exist in the Statute for the creation of an International Criminal Court. They have identified that protection is necessary so that there is no miscarriage of justice; but protection is also necessary to restore in them, a sense of human dignity which stands shatters at the occurrence of a crime. The list of duties for providing protective measures under the Statutes for the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals and recently in the newly agreed Statute for the International Criminal Court