SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 6975

Retnarasa al Annarasa – Appellant
Versus
Public Prosecutor – Respondent


Mohamed Apandi Ali J:

[1]This is a notice of motion by the applicant arising from an inquest proceeding at the magistrate's court. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. In the course of the inquest proceeding counsel for the applicant made an oral application to the magistrate who was holding the inquest; for the reports (ie post-mortem reports and other medical reports) to be supplied. Magistrate refused and in the order only allowed access to the reports be given after the relevant medical witnesses has given evidence. In the motion (notice usul) — KM2, the applicant is asking for:

(i)the order not to have access to the post-mortem report and other medical reports until after medical witnesses have given evidence, be set aside; and

(ii)that applicant to be supplied with a copy of the post-mortem report and all other medical reports of the deceased.

[2]All parties have filed written submissions on this matter. Counsel for applicant, in his submission in reply has now watered down the application, and limiting it to the supply of the post-mortem report only.

[3]Basically this motion is an application for disclosure of documents. The position in law on this issue and subject-matt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top