Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

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