Section 312 CrPC: Expenses of Complaints & Witnesses in India’s Criminal Procedure Code
1. The Code:
Section 312 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) deals with the expenses incurred by complainants and witnesses in criminal proceedings.
2. Explanation:
This section outlines the provisions for reimbursing complainants and witnesses for expenses incurred by them while attending court proceedings. These expenses may include travel costs, subsistence allowances, and other related expenditures. The court has the authority to determine the appropriate amount of reimbursement based on the nature of the case, distance traveled, and the duration of the proceedings.
The section aims to ensure that financial constraints do not hinder individuals from participating in the justice system. By providing financial assistance, the court encourages active participation in criminal proceedings and promotes fair trial processes.
3. Illustration:
Imagine a witness residing in a remote village is summoned to a court located in a distant city. The witness incurs significant travel costs and needs to stay in a hotel for several days to attend the proceedings. In such a scenario, Section 312 empowers the court to reimburse the witness for their travel expenses, hotel costs, and other reasonable expenditures.
4. Common Question & Answers:
Q1: Who is eligible for reimbursement under Section 312 CrPC?
A1: Complainants and witnesses in criminal cases are eligible for reimbursement under Section 312.
Q2: What types of expenses are covered under Section 312 CrPC?
A2: The expenses covered include travel costs, subsistence allowance (daily living expenses), and other related expenditures deemed necessary by the court.
Q3: How is the amount of reimbursement determined?
A3: The court determines the appropriate amount of reimbursement based on the nature of the case, distance traveled, duration of the proceedings, and other relevant factors.
Q4: Is reimbursement mandatory under Section 312 CrPC?
A4: While the court has the power to reimburse, it is not mandatory. The court considers the circumstances of the case and decides whether reimbursement is justified.
