Accused persons have a fundamental right to access all evidence the prosecution intends to rely upon for an effective defense.

O R D E R

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner challenges Annexure-3 Order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, which declined the petitioner's request for a copy of the pen drive produced by the complainant in a private complaint. In C.C.No.95/2023, the offences alleged are under Section 500 of the Penal Code . The defacto complainant in the private complaint produced a pen drive containing the alleged defamatory statement alleged to have been made by the petitioner/accused. Needless to say that the defacto complainant wants to rely on that document, in respect of which aspect, there is no quarrel. The petitioner/accused applied for a copy of the pen drive, which, however, was refused vide Annexure-3 impugned Order stating that the contents of the defamatory statement have been reproduced in the complaint, besides the same being available in the public domain.

2. When this matter was taken up for consideration today, the same is the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/defacto complainant. It was pointed out that the contents of the defamatory statement have received wide publicity and the same is available on social media. The petitioner is fully aware of the contents of the pen drive, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, this Court notice that Annexure-3 Order cannot be sustained. It is relevant to note that the right of defense is an important right available to an accused in a criminal case. For the effective and proper exercise of that right, the accused should be given the copies of all the documents which the prosecution wants to rely upon. There is no ambiguity with respect to the above-referred settled legal position. Pursuant to the amendment to the Criminal Rules of Practice by introduction of Rule 19(4), all statements, documents and material objects collected during the course of investigation - albeit the same being not relied upon by the prosecution - also will have to be given to the petitioner. The position pursuant to amendment of the was clarified in Varghese Kuruvila v. State of Kerala [2024 (5)

KLT 488] by this Court. Here, in the instant case, the respondent/defacto complainant wants to rely upon the pen drive produced by him, in which case, there cannot be any doubt that a copy of the same will have to be provided to the petitioner/accused. The explanation that the contents of the press conference containing the defamatory statement is available in the private complaint preferred by the complainant, or for that matter, in the social media, is no answer to the statutory requirement of providing the material/document to the accused.

4. In the circumstances, Annexure-3 Order will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the respondent/defacto complainant to make available a copy of the pen drive, which has been produced in C.C.No.95/2023 before the Court and to provide the same to the petitioner/accused before commencement of trial. It was submitted that the trial stands scheduled on 15.11.2025. Needless to say that, the trial will have to be adjourned, so as to enable the respondent to provide a copy of the pen drive and also for the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to hand over the same to the petitioner/accused.

Let the matter be rescheduled for trial, after completing the above exercise.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as indicated above.