COURT DIARY

Submitted to

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

By
Akash A M (1944)

Under the guidance of Dr. Kirandeep Kaur

In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree of

BA.LLB

PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

(August – December 2022)
NAME OF THE JUDGE
MS Harinder Sidhu, Special Judge, CBI Mohali Punjab

NAME OF THE CASE

CBI v. Rajesh Bansal

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case's facts center on whether the accused made phone calls regarding exposing a corruption
or scandal involving the CBI and whether the talks were recorded, and if they were, how much of
it he listened. Mr. Rajesh Bansal, the accused, was subjected to a superb lawyer's cross-
examination on that specific day and eventually bowed to the lawyer's persistence.
The Central Bureau of Investigation is the name of India's top investigative police force (CBI).
It is the primary investigative body for the Union Government and is tasked with looking into a
wide range of criminal and national security issues. Prior to its creation on April 1, 1963, the
CBI drew authority from the Special Police Force. Later on, though, the Home Ministry of the
Indian government took control of it.
Since the CBI is a specialist organization, it deals with issues involving government corruption as
well as other economic expenses including scandals and scams. In contrast to the police force, it
does not deal with routine and general issues. In order to secure the protection of national
security, it primarily deals with economic and conventional violations.

LAWS IN QUESTION INVOLVED

Although the laws in question were essentially factual, one of the key issues in the case was
whether the accused had listened to the phone conversation on the fatal day of November 5, 2015.
On the day of our court appearance, the opposing attorney skillfully conducted a cross-
examination of the accused.
A witness is examined when they are questioned about pertinent details of the case and their
statements are recorded as evidence. The Evidence Act's Section 138 mandates that a witness be
cross-examined in the following sequence, which consists of three parts:
• According to Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, the witness is first cross-examined
by the party who called him. This procedure is known as the "examination in chief."
• If the opposing side desires, they may seize control of the witness following the
conclusion of the main examination and engage in cross-examination of him regarding his
prior statements. He may be questioned by the opposing side about any fact that is
important, not just the ones that were covered in the examination-in-chief. Cross-
examination is the term used in Section 137 of the Act to define this procedure. After the
witness has undergone cross-examination, the party who summoned the witness may, if
they deem it necessary, re-interview the witness. Re-examination is defined as such in
Section 137 of the Indian Evidence.

PROCEDURE INSIDE THE COURTROOM

The parties shall not use leading questions in the examination, cross-examination, or re-
examination of any witness. According to Section 141 of the Act, leading questions are any that
hint at the response the person asking the question expects to hear.
If one side approaches the witness with a leading question, the other side must object. A question
that leads to an answer suggests it to the witness, as in:
 “You saw Harry wearing a black robe, didn’t you?”
This question by itself suggests that Harry was wearing a black robe; this question is
leading the witness to reply with what the questioner wants.

 “What was Harry wearing?”

The answer to this question could be the same as the previous one; however, there are no
suggestions in the question. It is a simple question and not leading in any way. These
types of questions are permitted.

This is because the witness must answer every question by himself as he is the one who has
witnessed the fact. If there is a suggestion in the question, the questioner would be feeding
responses to the witness.

We all know that if a witness makes contradictory claims, his testimony is not reliable and may
be suitable for dismissal. The advocate used his years of expertise, wisdom, and presence of
mind to force the accused or the witness to make these remarks.
When a witness testifies under oath in court during cross-examination and says something completely at
odds with the earlier statement that was recorded, either in terms of meaning or in another way. The
witness's testimony must give the judge in the chair comfort and confidence. Contradictions and

omissions make it difficult to believe that the witness and the evidence are reliable. The honourable

judge was frightening while still being forceful. The trial was conducted in a very
professional manner, and the courtroom environment was equally professional. It
wouldn't be inaccurate to state that the judge presided over the trial was the centre of
attention. I was struck by the clarity with which the court demanded answers from the
witness; the judge didn't accept responses that were ambiguous or had several meanings.
Many of the questions were yes-or-no choices, while others were lengthy. Observing the
Indian Evidence Act's sections in action and the distinction between theoretical law and
the law that is applied in courtrooms was a wonderful and enlightening experience.

INTERACTION WITH JUDGE, ADVOCATES AND COURT STAFF

The Hon'ble Judge Ms. Harinder Sidhu was gracious enough to grant us a personal meeting
with her following the conclusion of the case so that we may ask her any questions we had in
mind. She advised us on how to go about making professional decisions in life and what to
choose between a corporate job or a career in litigation, detailing the advantages and cons to us
about each profession. She was extremely soft spoken and responded to our most trivial query
with a kind grin. She continued by telling us about her own life as a judge for more than two
decades as well as the difficulties she encountered in her line of work.

An advice which got etched in my memory is the Hon’ble Judge advice for who goes on to
become a great lawyer, she commented that the lawyer who is very clear on the facts of the case
and law and conducts himself/herself according to the manners of court has a very high chance
of winning the case and the judge.

We also had the chance to speak with the opponent's attorney who handled the cross-examination,
and he provided us with helpful advice on how to handle one effectively. We also interacted with
court personnel, including a typewriter who, charmed by our inquiry, provided us with
information about the role of a typewriter in court proceedings and its historical and modern
relevance.