Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras 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