Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11335
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
MURALEEDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 898/2025
ANIL K.MUHAMED KRISHNAKUMAR G. AJIN SALAM MUHAMMED AFRIN NUHMAN T.T., E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The accused has the right to summon the General Diary at the defense stage under Section 233 Cr.P.C, distinct from the Police Diary, which is not available for evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 91 - Right of accused to summon General Diary - The trial court dismissed the application to summon the General Diary, citing confidentiality and irrelevance to the case merits - The court recognized the distinction between General Diary and Police Diary, affirming the right of the accused to summon the General Diary at the appropriate stage. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Stages of trial - The court noted that the right to summon documents is enforceable at the stage of Section 233 Cr.P.C, not at Section 231 Cr.P.C, emphasizing the importance of this right for the defense. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the sole accused in a pending trial, sought to summon the General Diary and weekly report to support his defense, arguing that these documents would reveal inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the reasons for the trial court's dismissal were unsustainable, the application to summon documents should be made at the defense stage under Section 233 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issues included the right of the accused to summon the General Diary and the appropriate stage for such a request.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the General Diary can be summoned by the accused, distinguishing it from the Police Diary, and emphasized the necessity of allowing such requests at the defense stage.
Result: Crl.M.C disposed of, allowing the right to summon documents at the appropriate stage.
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C. No.1307/2024 pending before the Fast Track Special Court-II, Manjeri. He is aggrieved by Annexure-3 Order, which refused an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C to call for the General Diary of the case and the weekly report of the Inspector of Police. The trial court found that the General Diary will contain confidential information pertaining to other cases. Besides, it was also found that if the General Diary is directed to be produced in order to tally the time at which the Mahazars etc. are prepared, the same will have to be done in every case. It is also found that the tour programme of the C.P.Os and patrolling have nothing to do with the merits of the case. Stating so, the petition was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the judgments of this Court in Shiju P.T v. State of Kerala [2016 (4) KLT 367]; an unreported judgment of another learned Single Judge in Crl.M.C.No.3880/2024; and also, the judgment of this Court in Hariharan P.K. v. State of Kerala and Another [2010 KHC 648], to contend that a Police Diary is different from the General Diary. The General Diary is maintained in terms of Section 12 of the Police Act and the distinction has been noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P [1995 (4) SCC 430]. These judgments would go to show that a General Diary can be summoned at the instance of the accused, in contradistinction with a Police Diary, which can only be perused by the Court, not for the purpose of evidence, but for the purpose of aiding or assisting the trial. According to the learned counsel, the impugned Order warrants interference.
4. To a specific query put by this Court as to whether this right is liable to be enforced only at the stage of 233 Cr.P.C, the answer given by the counsel for the petitioner is that the witnesses may have to be recalled, if this right is to be exercised at that stage. On merits, it is pointed out that, the F.I.R was registered on 25.04.2024, before which date, another complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant, wherein allegations of sexual assault is not there. If the General Diary is called for, the existence of that written complaint can be brought into light. Similarly, weekly report is sought for, for the reason that it contains the details of the places where the Investigating Officer had travelled, including his vehicle number. According to the learned counsel, the Mahazars etc. prepared in the instant case, were not done at the time at which it is stated in the Mahazar, which fact also can be brought out by producing the weekly report. On the question of privacy with respect to the details of other cases, if any, it is the suggestion of the learned counsel that the General Diary and the weekly report can be produced before the learned Sessions Judge; and if it contains the details of any other case, where the identity is supposed to be protected, such entries can be masked and given to the petitioner/accused.
5. This application was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that the petitioner/accused has no vested right to obtain copies of these documents, which are essentially maintained by the department officials as part of their job.
6. The judgments in Shiju P.T (supra) and Crl.M.C. No.3880/2024 are eloquent as regards the right of an accused to summon the General Diary. A perusal of paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Shiju P.T (supra) would make it clear that the General Diary, which is maintained in terms of Section 12 of the Police Act is different from Police Diary. Police Diary is maintained as per Section 172 of the Code. Imbibing the larger role of a Court to unearth the truth in every crime, a right to call for the General Diary has been recognised in these judgments, wherein, reliance is also see
