Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT ALLOWED TO PRODUCE DURING TRIAL IN NDPS CASE – KERALA HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

In a recent judgment , the Kerala High Court, presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, ruled in favor of allowing the production of an additional document in a narcotics drugs case. The judgment pertains to a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 3922 of 2023) involving the second accused, Sundaran.

Sundaran, who is facing charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, had challenged the order of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, which permitted the prosecution to produce and mark a photocopy of a document related to the search conducted at the premises.

The prosecution, represented by the State of Kerala and the Sub Inspector of Police, Ollur Police Station, sought permission to introduce the document, which disclosed that the accused had been informed of his right to have a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer present during the search. However, the document was not initially included with the final report, leading to the prosecution's application under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting permission to present a true photocopy of the document as the original had been lost.

The petitioner, through his counsel, objected to the introduction of the document, alleging that it was fabricated and introduced to strengthen the prosecution's case. However, the Sessions Judge rejected the objection, stating that the genuineness of the document could be examined during the trial.

The High Court, while considering the matter, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and another [2002 (5) SCC 82], which clarified that there is no specific prohibition on producing additional documents at a subsequent stage. It further emphasized that if a mistake was made by the investigating officer in not producing a relevant document initially, it could be presented later with the court's permission. The High Court upheld the Sessions Judge's decision, allowing the document to be received on file, subject to the petitioner's objection.

The judgment also addressed the practice of deciding objections during the evidence stage, highlighting the need to modify the archaic practice and adopt a procedure whereby objections are tentatively marked and decided at the last stage in the final judgment. This approach aims to prevent prolonged trials and ensure the steady progress of trial proceedings.

DATE OF DECISION: 24th May 2023

SUNDARAN vs STATE OF KERALA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Legal News