Disclosure Of Identity Of Protected Witness Defeats The Purpose Of Section 44 (3) UAPA: Calcutta HC Orders Trial Court To Redact Name Of Protected Witness

The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 mandate Courts to undertake measures to protect the identity of a protected witness and accordingly directed the concerned Trial Court to to redact the name, address and other particulars of the protected witness from the records immediately.A Bench comprising Justices. The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 mandate Courts to undertake measures to protect the identity of a protected witness and accordingly directed the concerned Trial Court to to redact the name, address and other particulars of the protected witness from the records immediately. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak noted that in the instant case, the statement of the protected witness recorded under Section 164 CrPC discloses his indignity. Opining that such disclosure of indignity defeats the provision of Section 44 of the UAPA, the Bench observed, "Sub-section of section 44 of the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967, inter alia, provides the measures which the court may undertake to protect the identity of a protected witness which includes avoiding to mention the name and address of the witness in its orders or judgment and any record of the case accessible to public.