Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
G. Subramanian & Another
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Crl.O.P.No. 18997 of 2014
Decided On : 11-08-2014
Documents - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 207, Section 91 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 207 and Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing the accused's right to receive copies of documents and the court's power to summon necessary documents. The judgment highlighted the importance of fair trial, the accused's right to defend themselves, and the obligation of the prosecution to make fair disclosure of documents. The court also emphasized the duty of the court to ensure the supply of documents to the accused in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners sought the original complaints filed by the De facto Complainant for obtaining certified copies. The trial court dismissed the petition, imposing an exemplary cost on the Petitioners for filing the petition with mala fide intention. The Petitioners challenged the dismissal, arguing that the original complaints should have been sent to the court and formed part of 'Court Records'.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the Petitioners could raise factual and legal pleas before the trial court during the main case arguments and seek appropriate remedies. The court also directed the Petitioners to pay a reduced sum as exemplary cost to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority.
Issues: The main issue was the Petitioners' request for the original complaints and the trial court's dismissal of the petition with an exemplary cost. The court also addressed the duty of the court and the prosecution to provide documents to the accused and the accused's right to receive copies of documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the accused's right to receive copies of documents, the duty of the court to ensure the supply of documents to the accused, and the obligation of the prosecution to make fair disclosure of documents. The court also highlighted the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to defend themselves.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition was dismissed, and the Petitioners were directed to pay a reduced sum as exemplary cost to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority. The dismissal did not preclude the Petitioners from raising factual and legal pleas before the trial court and seeking appropriate remedies during the main case arguments.
1. The Petitioners/A.7 and A.8 have projected the present Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent/Complainant /Prosecution to produce the original complaints filed by the De facto Complainant for obtaining certified copies of the same.
2. The Learned XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CBI Cases Relating to Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai, while passing the impugned order on 24.6.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.1680 of 2014 in C.C.No.22 of 1997 (filed by the Petitioners/A.7 and A.8), had inter alia, observed that ..... “The present petition has been filed without any bona fide. No purpose will be served by calling for documents, which are admittedly considered by the prosecution to the effect that they are not available in the Court records. This matter has already been decided by this Court in an earlier petition filed by A.1 and A.2 in Crl.M.P.No.5021 of 2013 dated 8.1.2014 and this fact is well known to the Petitioners/Accused and the present Petition is filed only to protract the disposal of the case and the steps taken by the Petitioners frivolously with a mala fide intention has to be taken into consideration by the Court very seriously” and resultantly dismissed the petition by ordering an exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- to be borne by the Petitioners equally, i.e., Rs.5,000/- each to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai.
3. Assailing the correctness of order of dismissal passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1680 of 2014 in C.C.No.22 of 1997, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/A.7 and A.8 urges before this Court that the original complaints should have been sent along with the F.I.Rs to the Court and as such, it forms part of 'Court Records' and as such, the said 'Records' are to be maintained pending trial.
4. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the trial Court had categorically admitted that nine F.I.Rs. were registered on the basis of nine written complaints by the respective Managers. However, it had on an erroneous view rejected the Miscellaneous Petition (filed by the Petitioners) which had ultimately resulted in serious miscarriage of Justice.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/A.7 and A.8 relies on the order of this Court reported in K.RAMAJEYAM Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLORE DISTRICT, whereby and whereunder in paragraphs 6, 10 and 11, it is observed as under:
“6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that copies of documents which ought to have been furnished to the accused by the committal Court under Section 207 Cr.P.C since were not given, it can be sought for from the Sessions Court. The documents sought for are necessary for the accused to make effective defence. Such furnishing of copies of documents is right of the accused and it is part of principle of fair trial. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel also cited V.K. SASIKALA Vs. State rep. by SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (2012 (9) SCC 771).
10. “No man shall be deprived of his life and liberty except by procedure established by law" is constitutionally guaranteed to everyone. (See Article 21, Constitution of India). Only after following a 'fair, reasonable and equitable procedure', the liberty of a person can be curtailed in accordance with law (see MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1978 SC 25). Right of the accused to defend himself as against the accusations made against him is constitutionally guaranteed (see Article 22, Constitution of India).
11. No one shall be condemned unheard. Before condemning a person, reasonable opportunity must be given to him. If only the basis of accusations, materials are revealed the indicted person can defend himself effectively. Without furnishing, disclosing him copies of the incriminating materials asking him to defend will be an empty formality. It is really not giving him opportunity much less a re
AI
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
