Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Akhil Sabu, S/o.Sabu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 5224 of 2024
Decided on : 21-06-2024
Rule 19(4) - Compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982 - Sections 173, 207, 208 of the Cr.P.C. - Summary: The court discussed the compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, which mandates the supply of statements of witnesses recorded and a list of documents as mentioned in Sections 173, 207, and 208 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the importance of furnishing a list of materials seized and taken in during the investigation to the accused, as well as the need for compliance with such rules in all criminal trials. The court found that the prosecution had complied with Rule 19(4) and dismissed the petition, directing all Criminal Courts to ensure compliance of the rule before the start of trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner raised concerns about the non-compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, which mandates the supply of statements of witnesses recorded and a list of documents as mentioned in Sections 173, 207, and 208 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the accused's right to fairly defend the case had been taken away due to non-compliance with the rule.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had complied with Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, and dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner's challenge had been raised when the case was posted for trial for the third time, indicating an attempt to protract the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had complied with Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, and emphasized the importance of ensuring compliance with such rules in all criminal trials. The court also noted that the petitioner's challenge had been raised when the case was posted for trial for the third time, indicating an attempt to protract the trial.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the registry was directed to ensure compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice in Kerala, 1982, before the start of trial by directing Public Prosecutors to give a specific posting for the said compliance and start trial only after ensuring the compliance of the mandate of Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, without fail.
The legal document emphasizes the critical importance of strict compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, which mandates that in all criminal trials, the prosecution must furnish the accused with statements of witnesses recorded and a list of documents, material objects, and exhibits seized during investigation, as specified in Sections 173, 207, and 208 of the Cr.P.C. Additionally, the rule requires that the list specify which statements, documents, and objects are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer (!) (!) .
The court underscored that such compliance is essential to uphold the accused’s right to a fair trial and to prevent protraction of proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . It was noted that the prosecution had, in this case, adequately complied with Rule 19(4), as evidenced by the filed statements and lists of relied-upon materials, and that the grievances raised by the petitioner appeared to be attempts to delay the trial process (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the purpose of the rule is to ensure transparency and fairness by providing the accused with clear information about the evidence and materials that will be relied upon during trial, as well as those that will not be relied upon (!) (!) (!) (!) . The court directed all criminal courts to strictly ensure compliance with Rule 19(4) before the commencement of trials, including specific directions for Public Prosecutors to give clear postings for such compliance (!) .
In summary, the judgment affirms that adherence to Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, is mandatory and that the prosecution’s proper compliance with this rule is a safeguard for the fair conduct of criminal trials. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that any delay or challenge raised when the trial is scheduled is likely an attempt to protract proceedings rather than a genuine concern about procedural compliance.
ORDER :
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.' hereinafter), and the prayers herein are as under:
ii. To quash the proceedings dated 14/06/2024 in Sessions Case No.749/2022 on the files of the Honourable Fast Track Special Court, Erattupetta.
iii. Issue a direction to the respondent to furnish copies of all the evidences, material and documents gathered during the course of investigation to the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, Criminal Rules of Practice in Kerala, 1982 (for short, 'the Rules, 1982' hereinafter) got amended and Rule 19(4) incorporated w.e.f. 19.5.2022. Therefore, compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, is mandatory, before start of trial. However, in the case at hand, though the case stands posted for trial on 22.6.2024, Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, not complied. Therefore, the right of the accused to fairly defend the case has been taken away and in such view of the matter, non-compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, would require interference with direction to the trial court to ensure compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510] holding that, in the interests of fairness, the prosecution should as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, comply with Rule 4 of Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, and furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules.
4. Resisting the contention, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, as on 14.6.2024, the learned Public Prosecutor, in compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, filed statement to the effect that the prosecution only intended to adduce evidence, based on the statements that form part of the charge and copies thereof, which were furnished to the accused. Further, it is submitted that, on earlier two occasions, when the case was scheduled for trial, the accused got adjourned the same and the victim, who has been studying in Bangalore, has been disturbed by getting adjournments on flimsy reasons. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, since Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, has been complied, the grievance of the petitioner is of no avail and the attempt is nothing, but, to protract the trial. Therefore, this petition only to be dismissed.
5. Addressing the controversy involved, as per the decision in Manoj & Ors. (supra), in paragraph Nos.177, 178 and 179, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"4. SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 173, 207 AND 208 CR.PC.
Every Accused shall be supplied with statements of witness recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC and a list of docu
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, which mandates the supply of statements of witnesses recorded and a list of doc....
The right to access all investigation materials, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial under Article 21.
Due process as per Section 19(4) of Criminal Rules of Practice must be adhered to, ensuring accused are provided necessary evidence and documents.
Compliance with procedural rules before trial commencement is crucial to ensure timely justice and prevent unjust delays.
Important Point:a) A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiryb) it was the duty of the prosecution to ensure fair trial for both the prosecution and the ....
Right of accused to be supplied with documents or material, seized or collected during investigation – Merely because it is not already on record of court, cannot disentitle accused from accessing ma....
The accused's right to a fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution to make fair disclosure, and the accused's entitlement to relevant documents collected during the investigation were central leg....
The accused is entitled to all evidence collected during the course of investigation to build a proper defense, and the denial of necessary evidence to defend oneself would violate the principle of a....
Compliance with documentation rules in criminal proceedings is essential for fair trial rights.
Every judge who presides over a criminal trial, has authority and duty to decide on validity or relevance of questions asked of witnesses. Courts in all criminal trials should, at beginning of trial,....
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
