S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the legal document:
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific assistance.
ORDER :
1. This suo motu proceeding under Article 32 was initiated during the course of hearing of a criminal appeal1[Crl.A.400/2006 & connected matters]. The Court noticed common deficiencies which occur in the course of criminal trials and certain practices adopted by trial courts in criminal proceedings as well as in the disposal of criminal cases and causes. These related, amongst others, to the manner in which documents (i.e. list of witnesses, list of exhibits, list of material objects) referred to are presented and exhibited in the judgment, and the lack of uniform practices in regard to preparation of injury reports, deposition of witnesses, translation of statements, numbering and nomenclature of witnesses, labeling of material objects, etc. These very often lead to asymmetries and hamper appreciation of evidence, which in turn has a tendency of prolonging proceedings, especially at the appellate stages.
2. The Court had noticed that on these prominent aspects, rules appeared to have been formulated by certain High Courts, whereas many other High Courts have not framed s
None of the provided case references indicate that the primary precedent—*In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2021) 10 SCC 598]*—has been overruled or reversed. All cited instances show courts applying, endorsing, or relying upon these guidelines.
### Followed/Applied
The vast majority of the entries fall into this category. The case *In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2021) 10 SCC 598]* is ubiquitously cited by lower courts and High Courts as authoritative guidance for criminal trial procedures.
* **Reliance and Endorsement:** Cases such as S. P. Velumani VS Arappor Iyakkam - 2022 6 Supreme 38, Akhilesh Singh, son of Sri Chandragupt Singh VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 650, Tarsem Kumar Son Of Sh. Puran Chand VS State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Home - 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 294, and GOPAKUMAR S/O KARUTHAKUNJU VS STATE OF KERALA - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 846 explicitly state that courts have "relied upon" or "endorsed" these guidelines to determine procedural fairness, the furnishing of documents to the accused, and evidence handling.
* **Procedural Authority:** Entries SUBAIR vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30352, Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir Th. SHO Police Station - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HC) 620, and GOPAKUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33270 demonstrate that the guidelines are being systematically implemented to ensure fair trials and correct practices regarding the marking of evidence and disclosure of materials.
* **Case References:** Rakesh Jain VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Crimes (2022), Rakesh Jain VS Central Bureau Of Investigation - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 843, Rakesh Jain VS Central Bureau Of Investigation - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 840, Varghese Kuruvila VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 901, and Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru S/O Late Gurumurthy VS State Of Karnataka - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 318 reinforce that the Supreme Court's guidelines serve as the binding standard for managing deficiencies in criminal trials.
### Distinguished/Considered
Some cases mention the guidelines alongside other specific facts or concurrent legal issues:
* Armin R. Panthaky VS Rohinton Panthaky - Bombay (2024): This entry refers to *State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B.*, where the court noted it is "neither necessary nor advisable to provide any uniform guidelines in this regard," distinguishing the suitability of uniform guidelines in that specific context compared to the broader applicability of the *In Re* guidelines.
* Syed Iftikhar Andrabi VS National Investigation Agency, Jammu - 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 548: This entry references the *In Re* guidelines but notes a specific procedural nuance, stating that "the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned."
* S. P. Velumani VS Arappor Iyakkam - 2022 6 Supreme 38: The entry mentions, "In a turn of events, the State Government went back on their earlier stand to close the criminal case." This is a factual development regarding the specific litigation rather than a judicial treatment of the *In Re* precedent itself.
* P. Ponnusamy VS The State of Tamil Nadu - 2022 8 Supreme 39: This entry contains repetitive formatting ("Trials Guidelines... In Re: vs. ... Trials Guidelines... In Re: vs.") which hinders a clear understanding of the specific procedural posture, though the reference remains rooted in the *In Re* guidelines.
* Bipin Shantilal Panchal VS State Of Gujarat - 2001 2 Supreme 65: This entry articulates a procedure for marking objected documents without naming a specific case title. While it aligns with the standards mentioned in the *In Re* guidelines, it is unclear if it is being cited as a standalone rule or a summary of the *In Re* principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.