Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
RANIMOL G – Appellant
Versus
CBI, ACB, COCHIN – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
Dated, this the 18th day of December, 2025 This petition is filed by the 1st 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 in Akhil 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 i
Due process as per Section 19(4) of Criminal Rules of Practice must be adhered to, ensuring accused are provided necessary evidence and documents.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, which mandates the supply of statements of witnesses recorded and a list of doc....
Compliance with procedural rules before trial commencement is crucial to ensure timely justice and prevent unjust delays.
The right to access all investigation materials, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial under Article 21.
Compliance with procedural rules is essential for a fair trial; document provision must precede witness cross-examination.
The prosecution must disclose all documents, including those not relied upon, to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial.
The discretion to allow the filing of additional evidence, such as the CDR, under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection t....
Compliance with procedural mandates set by Rule 19(4) of Criminal Rules of Practice is essential before trial scheduling.
Compliance with trial rules necessary for proper scheduling of cases.
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
Listen Article