Back
K. BABU
Chandra Mouli – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that statutory provisions and directions issued by the Supreme Court sufficiently safeguard the interests of victims of sexual offences. Any additional court-imposed requirements, such as affidavits from lawyers or accused persons, may constitute unwarranted interference with the right to practice law (!) .
The proceedings directing the petitioner/lawyer to file an affidavit stating that the copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. will not be misused were deemed unwarranted and are therefore quashed. The court clarified that the petitioner is entitled to receive certified copies of the victim's statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) .
The court recognized that a lawyer, as an officer of the court, must discharge duties legally without unwarranted interference. Directions or proceedings based on unfounded apprehensions about illegal acts by lawyers violate the right to practice law enshrined in the Constitution and the Advocates Act (!) .
The court highlighted the importance of protecting the identity of victims of sexual offences, referencing statutory provisions and Supreme Court directions that restrict disclosure of victim identities, and ensure their privacy and safety during proceedings (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the safeguards for victims' identities and rights are adequately addressed by existing laws and judicial directions, making additional restrictions or affidavits unnecessary and unwarranted (!) .
The final order directs the trial court to issue certified copies of the victim's statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, and disposes of the criminal miscellaneous petition accordingly (!) (!) .
These points collectively underscore the court's stance that existing legal protections are sufficient for safeguarding victims' rights and that unnecessary procedural hurdles, such as affidavits from legal professionals, are unwarranted interference.
ORDER :
The challenge in this Crl.M.C. is to the proceedings dated 29.9.2022 of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thrissur in Crl.M.P.No.477/2022 in S.C.No.358/2022. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 354-A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7, 8, 9(o) & 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner in the trial court on 28.9.2022 submitted an application seeking certified copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On the application, the learned Special Judge passed the following:-
This proceeding is under challenge.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Renjith B Marar and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a statutory right under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
