High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Accused Has No Right To Documents At Pre-Cognizance Stage: Calcutta High Court Upholds Lower Court Decisions On Document Access In Criminal Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Calcutta has upheld the decision of lower courts denying access to investigative documents to a discharged accused in the post-charge discharge stage, emphasizing the legal distinction between the rights of an accused and a de facto complainant regarding the accessibility of such documents to ensure a fair hearing in a protest petition.

The court delved into the procedural aspects concerning the rights of an accused to access documents during the stages of a criminal investigation, particularly post discharge by the investigating authorities. The ruling highlighted the entitlement of documents under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), where it was stressed that an accused does not have the right to participate in or access documents during further investigation.

The petitioner, Somesh Dasgupta, challenged the denial of access to various documents by both the trial court and the revisional court, which included the closure report and other investigative materials after being discharged by the investigating agency and the Internal Complaint Committee. The petitioner argued that access to these documents was crucial for effectively participating in the hearing of his protest petition.

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh meticulously addressed the arguments put forth, basing the decision on several precedents which clarify the rights of an accused versus those of a complainant. The judge noted, “The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure recognize an accused only after cognizance is taken by a court of law.” It was pointed out that “the law does not require the court to encumber itself with the burden of hearing the accused at this stage of the proceedings,” citing cases such as Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Vinubhai Haribhai Malavaya vs. State of Gujarat among others.

Right to Documents: The court clarified that the accused does not have the right to access documents at the stage of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

Participation in Proceedings: The court observed that the legal framework does not provide for the participation of the accused in the protest petition hearing process at the pre-cognizance stage.

Principles of Natural Justice: Justice Ghosh reiterated that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the accused’s recognition in the legal process begins post-cognizance, underscoring the procedural limitations on the rights of an accused in accessing investigative documents.

Decision The High Court dismissed the revisional application CRR 784 of 2023, affirming that “no legal provision mandates hearing the accused or providing him documents at the pre-cognizance stage of a protest petition under Section 173(8) CrPC.”

Date of Decision: May 13, 2024

Somesh Dasgupta vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Similar News