A. T. Mydeen v. The Assistant Commissioner Customs Department
Background
In 1998, Customs officials raided a warehouse in Tuticorin and seized hundreds of cartons, some containing sandalwood meant for illegal export to Singapore. Because one accused had absconded, the matter was split into two separate criminal trials for two sets of accused, both involving largely the same witnesses and documents. The trial court acquitted everyone in both cases, but the Madras High Court, deciding both appeals together in a single common judgment, reversed the acquittals and convicted all six accused, while discussing the evidence of only one of the two separate trials.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that evidence recorded in one trial cannot be used to convict accused who were tried separately, even for the same alleged offence and even with largely overlapping witnesses, because those accused never got the chance to cross-examine the witnesses as they testified in their own trial. Since the High Court's common judgment relied on evidence from only one of the two trials while convicting both sets of accused, it had committed a fundamental legal error affecting the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and sent both appeals back to the High Court to be decided afresh, strictly on the evidence recorded in each trial separately, with all questions of law and fact left open.
Lesson Learnt
When the same incident leads to separate trials for different accused, each person can only be judged on the evidence actually presented and tested in their own trial, borrowing findings or evidence from someone else's trial, however similar the facts, violates the right to a fair trial.