Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
K. Sivamani - Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 25160 of 2023 & Crl. M.P. No. 17443 of 2023
Decided On : 20-11-2023
Criminal Appeal - Production of Draft Final Reports - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) - IPC Section 109 - Cr.P.C Section 91
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dismissing the petition filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to produce draft final reports dated 27.10.2015 and 07.03.2016 before the trial Court. The reports were prepared by the investigating officers, absolving the petitioner of any offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the draft final reports were necessary for the trial and not confidential. The petitioner's right to fair trial and defense, as well as the duty of the Public Prosecutor to ensure fair play in the proceedings, were emphasized.
Issues: The main issue was the production of draft final reports and the petitioner's right to fair trial and defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the draft final reports were necessary for the trial and not confidential. It emphasized the duty of the Public Prosecutor to ensure fair play in the proceedings and the accused's right to fair trial and defense.
Final Decision: The order dismissing the petition was set aside, and the respondent was directed to produce the draft final reports before the trial Court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2023 in C.C.No.6 of 2016 dated 19.09.2023 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai and may be pleased to direct the prosecution to produce the draft Final Report of I.O.No.1 (PW31) dated 27.10.2015 and draft Final Report of I.O.No.2 (PW32) dated 07.03.2016.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2023 in C.C.No.6 of 2016 dated 19.09.2023 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent Police has registered a case against the petitioner and 5 others for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 of IPC, in which, the petitioner is arrayed as A1, who is facing trial in C.C.No.6 of 2016, pending on the file of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai. The prosecution has examined as many as 32 witnesses and marked 54 documents and closed the evidence during March 2023.
3. During trial, the first Investigation Officer namely Kumaragurubaran, Inspector of Police, who was examined as PW31, in hisevidence dated 15.12.2022 had categorically admitted that after his thorough investigation, he had formed an opinion and came to a conclusion that the petitioner/A1 did not commit any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under IPC and therefore, sent the Report dated 27.10.2015 for approval to the Director to drop further proceedings. Further, the 2nd Investigation Officer nominated by the Department namely Ramachandra Moorthy, Inspector of Police, who was examined as PW32, had also concurred with the Report of PW31 that the petitioner did not commit any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under IPC and he had also sent his Report dated 07.03.2016 recommending only to take departmental action against the petitioner for certain procedural lapses.
4. However, subsequently, for reasons best known, the 2nd Investigation Officer had filed the final report based on which, the case was taken up for trial in C.C.No.6 of 2016. Finding that the two Reports dated 27.10.2015 and 07.03.2016 are desirable for the purpose of trial, the petitioner had filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2023 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, seeking to produce those documents before the trial Court.
5. The said prayer was objected by the respondent and the learned trial Judge, holding that the draft final reports sought for by the petitioner are confidential reports and also holding that the petitioner had filed the petition at the fag end of trial, had dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2023 vide order dated 19.09.2023. Against which, the present petition has been filed.
6. Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and the witnesses PW31 and PW32, who are the earlier investigating Officers, after thorough enquiry, finding that petitioner/A1 had not committed any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under IPC, have filed two draft final reports absolving the petitioner. He further submitted that the 2nd investigation officer /PW32, while filing the final report had stated that no offences have been made out by the petitioner/A1 under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under IPC and he had only recommended to take departmental action against the petitioner for certain procedural lapses.
7. He further submitted that the draft final report filed by PW31 dated 27.10.2015 and by PW32 dated 07.03.2016 are crucial documents for deciding the innocence of the petitioner and thereby, they fall into the category of documents which are desirable for the purpose
The duty of the Public Prosecutor to ensure fair play in the proceedings and the accused's right to fair trial and defense were central to the judgment.
Accused must be provided access to all documents necessary for defense to ensure a fair trial.
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 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....
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 document disclosure under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. for a fair trial, including materials not necessarily relied upon by prosecution.
The judgment emphasizes mandatory compliance with Supreme Court-established guidelines regarding document disclosure in criminal trials to ensure fair trial rights.
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 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....
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
