Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

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