Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Jayachandran, J.
Varghese Kuruvila - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor And Ors. – Respondents
CRL.MC NO.6592 OF 2024
Decided On : 05-09-2024
Disclosure - Criminal Trial - Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982 - The court emphasized the right of the accused to access all materials collected during investigation, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, to ensure a fair trial under Article 21.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a corruption case, sought access to documents not relied upon by the Investigating Officer. The Special Judge dismissed the request, stating Rule 19(4) was not in effect when the final report was filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Rule 19(4) grants the accused the right to access all investigation materials, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, to uphold the right to a fair trial.
Issues: Whether the accused can access statements and documents not relied upon by the Investigating Officer during a criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to access all materials collected during the investigation is essential for a fair trial, as mandated by Rule 19(4) and supported by Supreme Court precedents.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, directing the Special Judge to provide the accused with the requested list of documents.
ORDER :
C. Jayachandran, J.
Can the accused in a criminal trial lay his hands on statements, documents and material objects collected during the course of investigation, but which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer? It is this question which falls for consideration in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, which stems from the interpretation of Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982 (the Rules, for short). Before referring to the Rule as such, it is necessary to advert to the factual premise, which occasioned the above Crl.M.C. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.3/2014 of the Special Court, Kottayam. The offences alleged are under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was scheduled for trial on 05.08.2024. While so, on 15.05.2024, the petitioner/accused filed an application (Annexure-A2) under Rule 19(4) of the Rules, seeking a direction to furnish a list of documents and material objects, including the statements, documents and material objects which are not relied upon by the investigation officer. By Annexure-A3 order, the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, finding that Rule 19(4) was introduced as an amendment of the year 2022, whereas the final report in the case was filed as far back as, in 2014. Learned Special Judge found that there was no mandate to supply the documents sought for in Annexure-A2 application at the time of filing the final report. On such premise, Annexure-A2 was dismissed vide Annexure-A3, which is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.
2. Having regard to the complexity of the issue involved, this Court appointed Sri.Renjith B. Marar as the Amicus Curiae.
3. Heard Sri.Akhil Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt.Rekha.S, learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent; Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Amicus.
4. This Court will first deal with the submissions made by the learned Amicus. Learned Amicus would invite the attention of this Court to the history and genesis of the right recognised under Rule 19(4) to a suo motu proceeding registered by a three Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, titled In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in 2021 (3) KHC 273 : 2021 (10) SCC 598 ('suo motu proceeding', for short). The Honourable Supreme Court took note of common deficiencies in criminal trials and the dichotomy in certain practices adopted by trial courts. Lack of clarity and uniformity in the Criminal Rules of Practice formulated by various High Courts in the country was also taken stock of. A Draft Rules on Criminal Practice, 2021 was propounded by the learned Amici curiae appointed in that case, to which the response of various States were called for. After considering their response, the Draft Rules, appended to the judgment in suo motu proceeding, was accepted and finalised by the Honourable Supreme Court, with suitable modifications. All High Courts were directed to take expeditious steps to incorporate the Draft Rules on Criminal Practice, 2021 to the rules governing criminal trials. Necessary directions were issued to State Governments as well.
5. One among the aspects, which gained the attention of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Draft Rules is regarding the list of documents and statements, which are furnished to the accused at the commencement of trial, which is specifically dealt with in paragraph no.11 of the suo motu proceeding, to which my attention is invited by the learned Amicus. Paragraph no.11 is extracted here below:
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....
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....
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 ....
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 prosecution must disclose all documents, including those not relied upon, to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial.
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....
Accused must be provided access to all documents necessary for defense to ensure a fair trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's entitlement to seek production of documents under Sec. 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defense, and the expressio....
Due process as per Section 19(4) of Criminal Rules of Practice must be adhered to, ensuring accused are provided necessary evidence and documents.
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
