In Brief
In this criminal appeal under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Supreme Court addressed whether an accused can obtain redacted copies of statements of witnesses declared as protected by the trial court. The appellant sought redacted statements under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. after five witnesses were designated as protected. The High Court had rejected this, viewing it as an impermissible review of the earlier protective order. The Supreme Court held that the two orders were exercises of power under distinct provisions at different procedural stages—not a review. The protection order was made without notice to the accused; the later order was when the accused sought their statutory disclosure rights. Balancing fair trial rights with witness protection, the Court permitted redacted copies excluding identity, address, and occupation details, restoring the trial court's order and allowing the appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.