Rule 19(4) grants the accused a substantive right to request documents not relied upon by the prosecution before trial, ensuring fair trial rights.

ORDER

Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.21/2015 pending before the Special Court(Vigilance), Kottayam. Petitioner filed Annexure-A2 petition under Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala , seeking a list of statements, documents and material objects which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of prosecution. The same was dismissed by Annexure-A3 order of the learned Special Judge, holding that Rule 19(4) prescribes a substantive right in the hands of the accused, wherefore, the amendment incorporating Rule 19(4) to the rules can only be prospective. On the premise that the rule does not operate retrospectively, Annexure-A2 application was dismissed, which is under challenge in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

2. This Court has considered the same issue in detail in Crl.M.C.No.6592/2024, wherein this Court held that the right under Rule 19(4) should be meaningfully interpreted and the same shall be afforded to the accused, if the application is made any time before the commencement of the trial, thereby meaning the examination of witnesses. In the instant case, this Court notice that, Annexure-A2 application was filed in the month of June, 2024. The case stands posted for trial on 11.09.2024, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that, all the documents which were seized/collected during the course of investigation and all statements recorded have already been produced, and there exists no document, statement or material object which is in the possession of the Investigating agency and which is not sought to be relied upon for the purpose of prosecution.

3. For the reasons stated in the judgment in Crl.M.C.6592/2024 and taking note of the circumstances referred above, Annexure-A3 order is set aside and Annexure-A2 application is allowed. There will be a direction to the learned Special Judge to give an opportunity for the accused in terms of Rule 19(4) by directing the Investigating Officer to produce a list of documents, material objects and statements, which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer. If all documents, statements and material objects seized/collected have already been produced, irrespective of the fact whether it is sought to be relied upon or not, it will be open for the Investigating Officer to swear to an affidavit to that effect, the genuineness of which, if questioned, will be considered by the learned Special Judge, in accordance with law. The Special Judge is also cautioned to take care of the caveat as contained in clause (c) of paragraph no.17 of Pon nusamy P. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2022 SCC Online SC 1543], so as to ensure that the instant application and proceedings, if any, therefrom is not a camouflage/ruse for delaying the trial. Once the above direction in terms of Rule 19(4) is complied with, the learned Judge will schedule the matter for trial immediately thereafter. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with trial fully and wholeheartedly.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of, as above.