Due process as per Section 19(4) of Criminal Rules of Practice must be adhered to, ensuring accused are provided necessary evidence and documents.

ORDER

Dated, this the 18th day of December, 2025 This petition is filed by the 1^st accused in C.C No.1 of 2020 challenging the order dated 12.12.2025 in Crl.M.P No.439 of 2025, rendered by the Special Judge, CBI, Thriuvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, statements and documents in compliance with Section 19 (4) of the Criminal Rules and Practice were not provided to the petitioner. According to him, Annexure 6 is the petition filed before the Special Court and by Annexure 9 order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the decision of this Court inAkhil Sabu v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 49] and based on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, compliance of Rule 19(4) is mandatory.

4. A report from the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram was urgently called for when this contention is raised in the morning and the learned Special Judge reported as under:-

“There were 3 accused persons in the party array in the final report filed by the prosecution in CC 1/20, pending on the file of this Court. Later, honourable the High Court discharged the 3rd accused. In pursuant of the order referred to 1st above, the list of un-relied documents in CC 1/20 has been served to the learned counsels appearing for the 1st and 2nd accused. They have acknowledged regarding receipt of the list of un-relied documents in the proceeding sheet of the case itself. In this juncture, I report that, the procedures contemplated in Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice have already been complied in CC1/2020, pending on the file of this court.

Trial in CC1/2020 is going on. As per the order in Crl.MP No.432/25, filed by the prosecution, examination of witnesses proposed to be conducted on from 17.12.25 has been deferred to 22.12.25 onwards as the learned Prosecutor is undergoing institutional training programme at Ghaziabad. No witness has been examined in this case yet.”

5. On a perusal of Annexure 6 petition, it can be seen that the prayer therein was to call for the case diary and to examine the details in the statement of the witnesses, material objects and documents collected and taken by the investigating officer and to direct the investigating officer to supply the accused all the statement of the witnesses and others, if any ,and the respective dates of the statements as per the case diary along with material objects and documents collected during investigation which are not relied on by the prosecution. Further, a direction to list the materials relied and not relied by the prosecution.

6. On a perusal of the order impugned, as pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, Section 19 (4) has been complied and in paragraph 19 of the order, the learned Special Judge observed that the prosecution perused the list of statement of witnesses and material objects in respect of which a copy thereof has been supplied to the accused and therefore, there is no need to call for the case diary. The learned Special Judge also observed that during the cross-examination of the witnesses, the accused can peruse the CD for cross-examining the witnesses.

7. Section 19 (4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice reads as under:-

“19(4) Every accused shall be supplied with statement of witnesses recorded and a list of documents as are mentioned in Sections 173, 207 and 208 of the Code. In addition, every accused shall be supplied with a list of the material objects which the Investigation Officer relies upon. The list shall also specify those statements, documents and material objects that are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer.”

In the report of the learned Special Judge, it has been stated regarding the compliance of