Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 83540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
K.Sivamani – Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.25160 of 2023 | Crl.M.P.No.17443 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.C.Swamy
For the Respondents: C.E.Pratap
The prosecution must ensure fair trial principles by disclosing all relevant documents, affirming the accused's right to effective defense.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 91 - Criminal Original Petition filed to set aside dismissal of petition for production of draft final reports which could establish innocence of petitioner in ongoing trial under Prevention of Corruption Act - Court emphasized the necessity for fair trial and the right of the accused to access documents essential for defense. (Paras 17, 18)
(B) Right to Fair Trial - Importance of transparency and disclosure by prosecution - The court reiterated the obligations of a Public Prosecutor to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings and the necessity of disclosing vital documents to the accused during trial. (Paras 199-206)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is an accused facing trial for corruption; two police reports concluded that he did not commit any offence, but the prosecution continued to trial despite this. Petitioner sought production of these reports, deemed crucial for his defense.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the draft final reports are essential for a fair trial and should be produced for examination, thus reversing the lower court's decision.
Issues: Whether the production of draft final reports was necessary for the defense and trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's duty to disclose relevant materials is paramount for the integrity of the trial process, emphasizing the accuser's entitlement to a fair defense based on all pertinent documents.
Result: The Criminal Original Petition is ordered, and the impugned order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. implications of procedural errors and document necessity. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. prosecution's role in ensuring fair trial and transparency. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 3. court's reaffirmation of the accused's rights to necessary evidence. (Para 12 , 18) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2023 in C.C.No.6 of 2016 dated 19.09.2023 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent Police has registered a case against the petitioner and 5 others for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 of IPC, in which, the petitioner is arrayed as A1, who is facing trial in C.C.No.6 of 2016, pending on the file of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai. The prosecution has examined as many as 32 witnesses and marked 54 documents and closed the evidence during March 2023.
3. During trial, the first Investigation Officer namely Kumaragurubaran, Inspector of Police, who was examined as PW31, in his evidence dated 15.12.2022 had categorically admitted that after his thorough investigation, he had formed an opinion and came to a conclusion that the petitioner/A1 did not commit any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under IPC and therefore, sent the Report dated 27.10.2015 for approval to the Director to drop further proceedings. Further, the 2nd Investigation Officer nominated by the Department namely Ramachandra Moorthy, Inspector of Police, who was examined as PW32, had also concurred with the Report of PW31 that the petitioner did not commit any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under IPC and he had also sent his Report dated 07.03.2016 recommending only to take departmental action against the petitioner for certain procedural lapses.
4. However, subsequently, for reasons best known, the 2nd Investigation Officer had filed the final report based on which, the case was taken up for trial in C.C.No.6 of 2016. Finding that the two Reports dated 27.10.2015 and 07.03.2016 are desirable for the purpose of trial, the petitioner had filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2023 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, seeking to produce those documents before the trial Court.
5. The said prayer was objected by the respondent and the learned trial Judge, holding that the draft final reports sought for by the petitioner are confidential reports and also holding that the petitioner had filed the petition at the fag end of trial, had dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2023 vide order dated 19.09.2023. Against which, the present petition has been filed.
6. Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and the witnesses PW31 and PW32, who are the earlier investigating Officers, after thorough enquiry, finding that petitioner/A1 had not committed any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under IPC, have filed two draft final reports absolving the petitioner. He further submitted that the 2nd investigation officer /PW32, while filing the final report had stated that no offences have been made out by the petitioner/A1 under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under IPC and he had only recommended to take departmental action against the petitioner for certain procedural lapses.
7. He further submitted that the draft final report filed by PW31 dated 27.10.2015 and by PW32 dated 07.03.2016 are crucial documents for deciding the innocence of the petitioner and thereby, they fall into the category of documents which are desirable for the purpose of trial. The prosecution has been closed and the petitioner being an accused is entitled to enter his defence and produce his evidence and he has also been given the right to apply to the Court fo
